Judge David J. Cowan, Case 20STCV17320 2022-09-29 Tentative Ruling

Please notify Dept. 1’s courtroom staff by email (SMCDept1@lacourt.org) or by telephone (213-633-0601) no later than 8:30 a.m. the day of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion. If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify the other side that you will not appear at the hearing. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motion. Please keep in mind that appearing at the hearing and simply repeating the arguments set forth in the papers is not a good use of the court’s time or the parties’ time.

Donya Entertainment, Inc. v. Farmers Insurance Exchange (20STCV17320); Zia Abhari, et al. v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, et al. (22STCV24750); Zia Abhari v. Bacon-Up Corporation, et al. (CIV-SB-2200940)

On June 17, 2022, Farmers Insurance Exchange (“Farmers”) filed a Notice of Related Case indicating Los Angeles Superior Court case no. 20STCV17320 is related to San Bernardino Superior Court case no. CIV-SB-2200940. On July 13, 2022, Farmers filed a Motion to Coordinate seeking to transfer case CIV-SB-2200940 to the Los Angeles Superior Court for coordination with case 20STCV17320. On July 22, 2022, Judge Teresa A. Beaudet concluded the two cases are not related. On August 19, 2022, Farmers filed a Notice of Related Case indicating Los Angeles Superior Court cases 20STCV17320 and 22STCV24750 are related to San Bernardino Superior Court case CIV-SB-2200940. On August 23, 2022, Judge Beaudet denied the Motion to Coordinate “without prejudice to it being filed with Department 1.”

On August 31, 2022, Farmers filed a Motion to Coordinate Cases in Department 1 seeking to transfer the San Bernardino case to the Los Angeles Superior Court for coordination with cases 20STCV17320 and 22STCV24750. The Motion is joined by Farmers Group, Inc. (dba Farmers Underwriters Association), Truck Insurance Exchange, and Truck Underwriters Association. On September 15, 2022, Donya filed an Opposition to the Motion to Coordinate. On September 21, 2022, Farmers filed a Reply in support of coordination.

But after acquiring the Restaurant, Donya discovered "water intrusion . . . adversely affecting the kitchen and dining areas" as "water from the lavatory containing fecal matter and bacteria" leaked into these areas. Donya "made a claim for that loss" under its policy; Donya also made a third-party claim under Bacon-Up's insurance policy with Farmers because the prior owners "had made alterations to physical structure of the flooring" to address "similar water intrusion" in the Restaurant. Donya alleges Farmers "refused to . . . conduct a fair and full investigation" to avoid paying on these claims, and Farmers eventually denied both claims.

On April 27, 2021, Judge Beaudet granted the Motion for Summary Judgment, finding Farmers had met "its initial burden to show that Plaintiff's claim was excluded under the Policy because the property damage was caused by the negligent work by Bacon-Up and was sufficiently continuous." Judge Beaudet found the plaintiff failed to carry its burden "to show a triable issue of fact," concluding "there are no proper disputes to the [u]ndisputed material facts." Moreover, Judge Beaudet found Donya failed to "provide evidence to support its breach of contract or bad faith claim as a third-party claim . . . on Bacon-Up's separate insurance policy finding Donya "is a stranger to that policy."

On May 12, 2021, Donya filed a Motion to Vacate the April 27, 2021 Order, asserting extrinsic fraud and due process violations.

On June 17, 2022, Farmers filed a Notice of Related Case indicating Los Angeles Superior Court case 20STCV17320 is related to San Bernardino Superior Court case CIV-SB-2200940.

On July 13, 2022, Farmers filed a Motion to Transfer and Coordinate seeking to transfer case CIV-SB-2200940 from San Bernardino Superior Court to Los Angeles Superior Court for coordination with case 20STCV17320.

On July 22, 2022, Judge Beaudet found case 20STCV17320 is not related to case CIV-SB-2200940.

On August 19, 2022, Farmers filed a Notice of Related Case indicating Los Angeles Superior Court cases 20STCV17320 and 22STCV24750 are related to San Bernardino Superior Court case CIV-SB-2200940.

On August 23, 2022, Judge Beaudet denied the Motion to Transfer and Coordinate "without prejudice to it being filed with Department 1" pursuant to Local Rule 3.3(h).

On August 31, 2022, Farmers Insurance Exchange filed a Motion to Coordinate Cases.

On September 1, 2022, Truck Insurance Exchange filed a Joinder to the Motion to Coordinate.

· Zia Abhari v. Bacon-Up Corporation, et al. (CIV-SB-2200940) – initiated on February 1, 2022 when Zia Abhari, the owner and CEO of Donya, filed a Complaint against Bacon-Up Corporation, Mazyar Yaghoubian, Farmers, Farmers Underwriters Association, Farmers Group, Inc., and Does 1-1000 stating causes of action for fraudulent concealment, fraudulent misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation. The Complaint alleges Bacon-Up and Yaghoubian provided a "Seller Disclosure Statement" on March 4, 2019 falsely representing (intentionally or negligently) that "there were no anticipated problems with the condition of the premises" or "awareness of any substances, materials or products on or near the premises that may be an environmental hazard such as contaminated water," and that "the premises had no deferred maintenance." Abhari alleges "there were defects within the premises . . . including water sourced from the restaurant's restrooms . . . which at times traveled under the flooring and intruded up and into the food preparation area." Abhari alleges Bacon-Up and Yaghoubian concealed the defects to induce Abhari to purchase the Restaurant in 2019.

Abhari also alleges the Farmers entities "participated in an Intentional Misrepresentation which was a substantial factor in causing Abhari's compensatory damages." Specifically, Abhari alleges Farmers falsely represented that it "would treat Abhari's interest in the subject restaurant franchise . . . as an insurable interes despite their "suppressed secret decision to treat the subject restaurant . . . as not bearing an actual insurable interest as to Abhari." Abhari alleges Farmers "knew, or had reason to know, and intentionally and purposefull did not disclose the existence of the water defects.

· Zia Abhari, et al. v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, et al. (22STCV24750) – initiated on August 1, 2022 when Abhari and Donya filed a Complaint against Farmers Insurance Exchange, Farmers Underwriters Association, Truck Insurance Exchange, Truck Underwriters Association, Farmers Group Inc., and Does 1-1000 stating causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and "aiding and abetting . . . breach of fiduciary duty." The Complaint alleges Abhari and Donya needed to (1) take out a loan to purchase the Restaurant and (2) agree "to have the commercial lease liability for the [Restaurant] transferred" to them from Bacon-Up. Donya's "proposed . . . purchase loan was conditioned upon the subject premises being insurable."

But the Restaurant allegedly "contained latent water intrusion defects" causing restroom water to "leak[] into the kitchen flooring in the food preparation area," unknown to Abhari and Donya, who allege "Yaghoubian and Bacon-Up took measures to conceal" the defects. Abhari and Donya purchased the Restaurant in July 2019 "by undertaking the money loan liability from the bank" and "legal responsibility of the lease liability" for the Restaurant, but discovered the aforementioned defects in November 2019.

Abhari and Donya allege the "Farmer Entities represented . . . that the condition of the subject premises was insurable, and without defects." Abhari and Donya allege the Farmer defendants and Truck defendants each failed to "conduct[] an inspection of the premises to determine if the condition of the subject premises was even insurable in the operation of a restaurant." Abhari and Donya claim the defects were "knowable upon an underwriting inspection of the subject premises," and allege the Farmer defendants and Truck defendants "failed to disclose . . . evidence of long-standing contaminated water intrusion defects" before the purchase of the Restaurant.

On August 19, 2022, Farmers Insurance and Truck Insurance filed a Notice of Related Case indicating Los Angeles Superior Court cases 20STCV17320 and 22STCV24750 are related to San Bernardino Superior Court case CIV-SB-2200940.

On September 1, 2022, Farmers Insurance Exchange and Truck Insurance Exchange filed a Motion to Coordinate Cases. Farmers Underwriters and Truck Underwriters each filed Joinders to the Motion to Coordinate.

This case is pending in Department 19 of the Stanley Mosk courthouse with a Case Management Conference set for April 18, 2023.

A trial judge may, “on motion,” transfer an action “from another court to that judge's court for coordination with an action involving a common question of fact or law.” (CCP sec. 403.) LASC Local Rule 3.3(h) authorizes a non-complex civil case to “be transferred to the court from a superior court in another county” for coordination with a case that “involves a common question of fact or law within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 403.” A coordination motion “shall be made in compliance” with CRC 3.500 and “[c]oordination motions seeking to transfer a case or cases to the Central District shall be filed and heard in Department 1” of the Stanley Mosk courthouse. (LASC Local Rule 3.3(h).)

A motion for coordination “shall be supported by a declaration stating facts showing that the actions meet the standards specified in [CCP] Section 404.1, are not complex as defined by the Judicial Council and that the moving party has made a good faith effort to obtain agreement to the transfer from all parties to each action.” (CCP sec. 403.) “Notice of the motion shall be served on all parties to each action and on each court in which an action is pending,” and any party in the underlying actions may oppose transfer. (CCP sec. 403.)

A case is complex if it “requires exceptional judicial management to avoid placing unnecessary burdens on the court or the litigants and to expedite the case, keep costs reasonable, and promote effective decision making by the court, the parties, and counsel.” (CRC 3.400(a).) Factors courts “must consider” in assessing complexity include whether the case requires “(1) Numerous pretrial motions raising difficult or novel legal issues that will be time-consuming to resolve; (2) Management of a large number of witnesses or a substantial amount of documentary evidence; (3) Management of a large number of separately represented parties; (4) Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court; or (5) Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision.” (CRC 3.400(b).)

Motions for coordination are controlled by CRC 3.500, which requires the moving party to “make a good-faith effort to obtain agreement of all parties to each case to the proposed transfer and consolidation” and show the party “has notified all parties of their obligation to disclose to the court any information they may have concerning any other motions requesting transfer of any case” relevant to the motion for coordination. (CRC 3.500(b); 3.500(c)(3).) An order granting coordination must “specify the reasons supporting a finding that the transfer will promote the ends of justice, with reference to” several factors addressed further below. (CRC 3.500(d)(1)-(8); CCP sec. 404.1.) In the event the motion is granted, CRC 3.500(e) requires the moving party to serve the order on all parties to each case and send it to the Judicial Council and to the presiding judge” of the transferring courts.

Cases are related when they (1) involve the same parties and are based on the same or similar claims, (2) arise from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact, (3) involve claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the same property, or (4) are likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges. (CRC 3.300(a).)

Defendants seek to transfer case CIV-SB-2200940 from the San Bernardino County Superior Court to the Stanley Mosk courthouse in the Central District of the Los Angeles Superior Court for coordination with cases 20STCV17320 and 22STCV24570 (which have not been deemed related). (CCP sec. 403.) “Coordination motions seeking to transfer a case or cases to the Central District shall be filed and heard in Department 1.” (LASC Local Rule 3.3(h).) Here, Defendants have already requested Judge Beaudet transfer the San Bernardino case here for coordination, and Judge Beaudet denied that request “without prejudice” for determination in Department 1. (See 20STCV17320 8/23/22 Order.) Department 1 therefore considers the request to transfer and coordinate case CIV-SB-2200940 with cases 20STCV17320 and 22STCV24570.

Initially, Donya argues the San Bernardino case and later-filed Los Angeles case have “been previously adjudicated as being not related to [case] 20STCV17320” by orders dated July 22 and August 23, 2022. (Opposition, p. 4-5.) Donya asserts res judicata and collateral estoppel apply to preclude Farmers from “seek[ing] to coordinate” the cases. (Opposition, p. 4-5.) Donya’s argument is unpersuasive because the Supervising Judge of the Civil Division (sitting in Department 1) is authorized to hear a Motion to Relate Cases pertaining to cases “pending in the Central District or . . . pending in two or more different districts” when “the judge designated under [CRC] 3.300(h)(1)(A)(B)(C) to make the decision, does not order related any of the cases set forth in the Notice of Related Cases.” (Local Rule 3.3(f)(3); CRC 3.300(h)(1)(D).)

Here, Farmers filed a Notice of Related Case on June 17, 2022 indicating Los Angeles case 20STCV17320 is related to San Bernardino case CIV-SB-2200940. On July 22, 2022, Judge Beaudet concluded the cases were not related. Farmers also filed a Notice of Related Case on August 19, 2022 indicating Los Angeles case 20STCV17320 is related to Los Angeles case 22STCV24570 and San Bernardino case CIV-SB-2200940. But Judge Beaudet did “not order related” any of the cases listed in that Notice.[1] Collateral estoppel does not preclude Department 1 from reaching the related case issue because CRC 3.300(h)(1)(D) and Local Rule 3.3(f)(3) authorize it to reach that issue regardless of earlier orders by other judges. Further, Donya did not offer any analysis of the doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel to support applying either doctrine here.

Next, Donya argues the Los Angeles cases should not be related because there are "no common issues of law or fact" between the Los Angeles cases, arguing the later-filed case only concerns "wrongful inducement by a failure to have the due fiduciary disclosure to Abhari, and to Donya," not Farmers' alleged “bad-faith claim investigation” of Donya's claims under its own policy and the Bacon-Up policy at issue in the earlier-filed case. (Opposition, p. 10-11.)

Both cases appear to arise out of the same transactions—Donya’s acquisition of the Restaurant in July 2019 in reliance on representations by Farmers, Bacon-Up, and Yaghoubian, Donya’s discovery of property defects in November 2019, Donya’s submission of claims under Bacon-Up’s policy and its own policy, and Farmers’ inadequate investigation and denial of those claims. (CRC 3.300(a)(2).) The later-filed case seeks relief for Farmers’ failure to inspect the Restaurant and identify the water defects before Donya’s acquisition in July 2019, but the case also arises from Farmers’ investigation and denial of Donya’s claims under its own policy—the Complaint in that case alleges the water defects were discoverable prior to purchase because, after Donya’s claim relating to the water defects in 2019, Farmers' inspector found "evidence of long term (greater than one (1) year) rot/decay of the wood flooring and debanding of the rubber." The earlier-filed case itself centers on Farmers’ investigation of the Restaurant in connection with Donya’s claims for damages from the water defects, seeking relief for Farmers’ alleged bad-faith denial of its claim after an inadequate investigation.

Moreover, the cases are likely to require determination of overlapping questions of law or fact. The cases will require assessment of common factual issues relating to the presence of water defects prior to purchase and Farmers’ investigation of those defects after Donya submitted a claim. (CRC 3.300(a)(2).) Indeed, Judge Beaudet granted summary judgment and entered judgment in favor of Farmers based on evidence that the water defects pre-existed Donya’s acquisition of the Restaurant, and thus were not covered by Donya’s policy. Judge Beaudet directly addressed the common factual issue of the presence of water defects, and in doing so, relied on evidence derived from Farmers’ investigation of Donya’s claim.

Thus, the cases are related within the meaning of CRC 3.300(a)(2).) Both cases also “involve claims . . . [of] damages to the same property,” the Restaurant, flowing from these pre-existing water defects, and thus are related within the meaning of CRC 3.300(a)(3). The Court also concludes the cases are likely to require duplication of judicial resources if left unrelated. (CRC 3.300(a)(4).) Donya’s theory of liability in the first case (bad-faith denial of water leak coverage under the Donya and Bacon-Up policies issued by Farmers) and theory of liability in the second case (fraudulent inducement to purchase by concealing water leaks) are based on largely the same factual allegations. Moreover, Donya and Abhari are seeking to recover for the same losses—damages to the Restaurant from the leaks, including losses from closure for sanitation reasons—merely under facially different theories. Indeed, it is unclear to the Court why Donya split claims for damages to the Restaurant arising from the same water losses across two cases. There will be substantial duplication of judicial resources if another judge considers anew Donya’s contentions regarding Farmers’ liability for the water defects.

First, Donya argues coordination under CCP sec. 403 “requires [Farmers] to fully comply with [CCP] Section 404,” controlling petitions for coordination, but Donya misapprehends the difference between Sections 403 and 404. Section 403 controls the coordination of non-complex cases pending in different counties, while Section 404 only applies to complex cases. (CCP sec. 403 (coordination motion must be supported by “facts showing that the actions meet the standards specified in Section 404.1 [and] are not complex...”); CCP sec. 404 (coordination petition shall be supported by “facts showing that the actions are complex, as defined by the Judicial Council and that the actions meet the standards specified in Section 404.1.”))

Farmers asserts the cases at issue are non-complex, and Donya does not offer any contrary argument. The Court independently assesses complexity below, but it is undisputed the cases are non-complex. Transfer under Section 403 for coordination merely requires that non-complex cases “involv[e] a common question of fact or law within the meaning of Section 404”—it does not require a party to petition for coordination under Section 404. (CCP sec. 403; see also Local Rule 3.3(h).) Thus, the Court rejects Donya’s argument that Farmers’ Motion should be denied for non-compliance with the procedural requirements of CCP sec. 404, which apply to petitions for coordination of complex cases.

For purposes of a coordination motion under CCP sec. 403, Farmers was required to make “a good faith effort to obtain agreement to the transfer” from parties to the cases. Donya argues Farmers did not obtain consent of San Bernardino case defendants Bacon-Up and Yaghoubian. But to the extent Donya contends the Motion should be denied for failure to obtain their consent to coordination, Donya fails to address Farmers’ contention that these parties have not appeared in the San Bernardino case. (Motion, p. 10.) Donya also fails to address Farmers’ contention that Donya’s counsel in that case “advised that Mr. Yaghoubian is evading service and had no contact information for any attorney representing him or Bacon-Up.” (Motion, p. 10; Cooper Decl., para. 3.) Hence, where Donya has not served these parties, it is unclear to the Court how Donya would expect Farmers to seek their consent to transfer the case.

Initially, the cases do not appear to be complex. Complex cases “require[] exceptional judicial management to avoid placing unnecessary burdens on the court or the litigants and to expedite the case, keep costs reasonable, and promote effective decision making by the court, the parties, and counsel.” (CRC 3.400(a).) Complex cases involve some combination of “[n]umerous pretrial motions raising difficult or novel legal issues that will be time-consuming to resolve,” “a large number of witnesses or a substantial amount of documentary evidence,” “a large number of separately represented parties,” potential cases for coordination, and/or or “[s]ubstantial postjudgment judicial supervision.” (CRC 3.400(b).)

Here, the parties appear to agree the cases are non-complex; Farmers argues the cases are non-complex and Donya did not argue otherwise. The parties do not claim the cases require several “pretrial motions raising difficult or novel legal issues” or “a large number of witnesses or a substantial amount of documentary evidence.” No reason has been offered to conclude Abhari’s purchase fraud claims in the San Bernardino case and later-filed Los Angeles case will involve “difficult or novel legal issues” or substantial amounts of evidence. The earlier-filed Los Angeles case is post-judgment and for that reason will not require substantial evidence or pretrial motion practice; nor does the case require substantial “postjudgment judicial supervision.” Finally, the cases do not involve “a large number of separately represented parties”—Abhari and Donya are represented by the same counsel in all three cases, Farmers Insurance Exchange and Truck Insurance Exchange are represented by the same counsel in the later-filed Los Angeles case, and the other Farmers entities are represented by the same counsel in the later-filed Los Angeles case and San Bernardino case. (Cooper Decl., para. 3.) Yaghoubian and Bacon-Up have yet to appear in the San Bernardino case. (Cooper Dcl., para. 3.) Thus, the actions are not complex within the meaning of CRC 3.400.

Next, the Court considers “[w]hether the common question of fact or law is predominating and significant to the litigation.” (CRC 3.500(d)(2).) Farmers argues the cases involve overlapping issues concerning interpretation of the policy issued to Donya, including its “provisions for coverage, exclusions, inspections, integration, [and] identification of the insured”; the Farmer entities’ obligations to Donya under the policy; “facts preceding issuance of the Donya policy” and “facts surrounding the occurrence” of the water leaks; the “extent to which the water intrusion problem was undetectable . . . or ‘knowable’ . . . prior the closing date of Donya’s purchase”; the investigation of Donya’s claim; disputes over whether the Restaurant and policy were purchased by Donya or Abhari; and “Donya’s constructive knowledge of and duty to read the terms of the FIE insurance policy.”

In response, Donya argues the San Bernardino case should not be coordinated with the Los Angeles cases because the cases involve different claims—the San Bernardino case involves fraud claims for “transactional wrongdoing” by Bacon-Up, Yaghoubian, and Farmers to induce the purchase of the Restaurant, while the earlier-filed Los Angeles case concerns “the April 2020 bad-faith refusal by FIE to have conducted a thorough claim investigation.” Donya argues the “terms of the insurance policies, and ‘coverage’ are entirely irrelevant” to claims concerning fraudulent representations prior to purchase.

The cases do involve “predominating and significant” issues of fact relating to the presence of the water defects, the extent of damages to the Restaurant, concealment of the defects prior to purchase, Donya’s discovery of water defects in late 2019, and Farmers’ knowledge of and investigation into water defects in the Restaurant before and after purchase. (CCP sec. 404.1 (coordination depends on “whether the common question of fact or law is predominating and significant.”)) These issues are at the heart of all three cases. Moreover, given Judge Beaudet’s prior finding that the water defects pre-existed Donya’s purchase of the Restaurant, there is a risk of “inconsistent rulings” if another judge in San Bernardino County considers anew whether the water defects pre-existed this purchase in assessing whether Farmers knew or should have known of the defects. (CRC 3.500(d)(7) (coordination supported by “disadvantages of duplicative and inconsistent rulings, orders, or judgments”))

Notably, Donya does not dispute that the later-filed Los Angeles case and San Bernardino case both pertain to Farmers’ alleged inducement to purchase the Restaurant, and concedes that coordination of this case with the San Bernardino case “would be consistent with . . . Section 404.1, as well as [CRC] Rule 3.500.” Donya instead argues the Los Angeles case should be transferred to the San Bernardino Superior Court instead. To address this contention, the Court must consider factors relevant to the forum for coordination, including the “convenience of the parties, witnesses, and counsel,” the “relative development of the actions and the work product of counsel,” the “calendar of the courts,” and the “efficient utilization of judicial facilities and staff resources.” (CRC 3.500(d)(3)-(6).)

These factors support transferring the San Bernardino case to Los Angeles Superior Court. While the earliest-filed Los Angeles case has been litigated to judgment, there has been no significant “development of the action[]” in San Bernardino Superior Court. The parties do not argue the calendar of the San Bernardino Superior Court is more favorable than that of the Los Angeles Superior Court. (Motion, p. 11-12.) Farmers accurately notes that coordination would be efficient because this Court—specifically, Judge Beaudet—has “invested valuable time and resources into the events giving rise to the three cases and is already familiar with the FIE policy and facts and circumstances giving rise to Donya’s insurance claim.” (Motion, p. 11.) Indeed, Judge Beaudet has considered evidence relating to the water defects in the Restaurant and Donya’s claims against Farmers. Under the circumstances, transferring the San Bernardino case to Department 50 would promote “efficient utilization of judicial facilities and staff resources” rather than spreading these three similar cases across three courtrooms.

Though Donya argues “many of the percipient witnesses” are located in San Bernardino County, Donya did not identify any witness residing in San Bernardino County. Similarly, though Donya argues the case should not be transferred because the parties have begun conducting discovery in San Bernardino County, the parties began conducting discovery even earlier in the first Los Angeles case. It would be most efficient for the parties to continue conducting discovery relating to these common events in that case, rather than conducting discovery in multiple counties. Finally, Donya argues the case should not be transferred because the Restaurant is located in San Bernardino County. But this was true when Donya filed its first case in Los Angeles Superior Court; Donya only pursued litigation in San Bernardino after adverse judgment in the first case, potentially to avoid further litigation in front of Judge Beaudet. Moreover, Abhari, sole owner and CEO of Donya, filed another case relating to the Restaurant in Los Angeles Superior Court. Abhari and Donya cannot now credibly argue that cases concerning the Restaurant need to be heard in San Bernardino County given the filing of litigation in Los Angeles County before and after the San Bernardino case.

Donya argues Farmers employee Jeff Triplett and/or attorney Gail Cooper committed perjury because Triplett "stated that the two claims have 'nothing to do' with each other" while Cooper stated "the two claims possess 'common issues of law and fact. Donya argues the Motion to Coordinate "must also be dismissed, as it constitutes extrinsic fraud upon the institution of the Court, and no judge is at all authorized to in any manner or to any degree endorse it or even tolerate it." (Opposition, p. 11-12.)

This argument is rejected for three reasons. First, Donya’s assertion that the judgment is the product of extrinsic fraud by Triplett has already been rejected by Judge Beaudet. (See 20STCV17320 7/16/21 Order, p. 4 ("Finally, even if Plaintiff correctly argues that declarant Jeff Triplett contradicted himself, which Plaintiff did not demonstrate in the opposition to the underlying motion or in this motion, that self-contradiction does not automatically defeat summary judgment as claimed in the motion because there still is no evidence of the existence of coverage.")) Second, to the extent Donya asserts Triplett’s testimony is inconsistent with Cooper’s testimony, he has not shown that this is perjury by either party, perjury being a knowingly false statement. (Penal Code sec. 118(b) (not established “where proof of falsity rests solely upon contradiction by testimony of a single person other than the defendant.”)) Third and finally, Donya fails to offer any legal authority supporting its argument that alleged perjury in one case would preclude coordination of that case with another similar case. Further, the alleged perjury occurred in case 20STCV17320, which is not coordinated with the San Bernardino case.

The Court therefore rejects Donya’s argument, but also denies (without prejudice) Farmers’ request in its Reply to refer Donya’s counsel to the State Bar for “egregious conduct” in falsely accusing counsel of perjury. That request is outside the scope of the Motion to Coordinate, particularly where the Court does not endorse Donya’s accusations of perjury and thus was not misled by Donya’s statements.

Donya also requests $14,240 in attorney's fees for "having to undertake this Opposition to the subject frivolous, dilatory and bad-faith Motion . . .whether pursuant to the Court's inherent authority, or any statutory authority." (Opposition, p. 12.) But the Motion is not frivolous, and Donya has not shown the Motion to be "dilatory [or] bad-faith." Further, no "statutory authority" is offered to support a fee award here. The request is therefore denied.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds case 20STCV17320 is related to case 22STCV24750. Civil case 22STCV24750 is reassigned to Department 50 of the Stanley Mosk courthouse for all purposes. Any hearings in civil case 22STCV24750 are advanced and vacated, but may be reset as needed.

The Motion for Coordination is GRANTED. The Court orders San Bernardino County Superior Court case CIV-SB-2200940 transferred to Department 50 of the Stanley Mosk courthouse for coordination with Los Angeles Superior Court cases 20STCV17320 and 22STCV24750 pursuant to CCP sec. 403, CRC 3.500, and Local Rule 3.3(h). The transfer and coordination of this case would promote the ends of justice for the reasons set forth above.

Moving party Farmers Insurance Exchange is now required to “promptly take all appropriate action necessary to assure that the transfer takes place.” (CRC 3.500(f).) Farmers is ordered to give notice of this Order to all parties, the Presiding Judge of the San Bernardino County Superior Court, the judge currently assigned to civil case CIV-SB-2200940, and the Judicial Council. (CRC 3.500(e).)

[1] To be precise, Judge Beaudet did not address whether cases 20STCV17320 and 22STCV24750 are related, instead deferring to Department 1 for determination of the Motion to Coordinate those cases with the San Bernardino case. But Judge Beaudet did “not order related” any of those cases before referring the parties to Department 1; the Court concludes a motion to relate these cases is procedurally proper under CRC 3.300(h)(1)(D).