Judge: David S. Cunningham, Case: 22STCV10604, Date: 2022-09-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV10604    Hearing Date: September 26, 2022    Dept: 11

Tentative Ruling Re: Motion to Reclassify Re: 22STCV10604

Date:                           9/26/22

Time:                          11:00 am

Moving Party:           Whittier College (“Whittier”)

Opposing Party:        Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 3 (jointly “Plaintiffs”)

Department:              11

Judge:                        David S. Cunningham

________________________________________________________________________

TENTATIVE RULING

Whittier’s motion to reclassify is denied.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs are former Whittier students.  They allege that a professor “sexually abused, harassed, assaulted, and/or battered” them (Complaint, ¶ 8) and that Whittier failed to protect them and even ratified the conduct.  (See, e.g., id. at ¶ 4.)

On 3/28/22, Plaintiffs filed the complaint.

On 4/13/22, this Court issued a minute order finding the case complex and assigning it to Judge Yvette Palazuelos.

On 6/29/22, Judge Palazuelos held the initial status conference.  At the hearing, defense counsel requested that the complex designation be reconsidered.  Judge Palazuelos instructed defense counsel to move for reconsideration before this Court.

On 7/27/22, Whittier filed the instant motion to reclassify the case as noncomplex.

LAW

A complex case 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.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.400, subd. (a).) 

In deciding whether an action is a complex case under (a), the Court must consider, among other things, whether the action is likely to involve:

(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.

(Id. at rule 3.400, subd. (b).)

[A]n action is provisionally a complex case if it involves one or more of the following types of claims:

(1) Antitrust or trade regulation claims;

(2) Construction defect claims involving many parties or structures;

(3) Securities claims or investment losses involving many parties;

(4) Environmental or toxic tort claims involving many parties;

(5) Claims involving mass torts;

(6) Claims involving class actions; or

(7) Insurance coverage claims arising out of any of the claims listed in (c)(1) through (c)(6).

(Id. at rule 3.400, subd. (c).)

DISCUSSION

Whittier’s motion is late under the 4/13/22 minute order and Code of Civil Procedure section 1008 since Whittier filed it way more than 10 days after 4/13/22.  (See 4/13/22 Minute Order, p. 1 [“Any party objecting to the complex designation must file an objection with proof of service in Department 11 within ten (10) days of service of this minute order. Any response to the objection must be filed in Department 11 within seven (7) days of service of the objection. This Court will make its ruling on the submitted pleadings.”]; see also Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Proc. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2022) ¶ 9:324 [instructing that a motion for reconsideration must be made within 10 days after service of the order].)

Regardless, Rule of Court 3.403(b) states: “With or without a hearing, the court may decide on its own motion, or on a noticed motion by any party, that a civil action is a complex case or that an action previously declared to be a complex case is not a complex case.”  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.403, sub. (b).)  Whittier filed the motion pursuant to this provision (see Notice of Motion, p. 2), so it is timely.

Whittier contends the case is noncomplex because:

There are only four total parties; there are no novel legal issues; there are no related actions in other venues; and there is no need for post-judgment supervision. Nor is this an antitrust, construction defect, securities, toxic tort, or class action case; in other words, this is not a typical complex case.

(Reply, p. 2.)  In a nutshell, Whittier argues that the case is an uncomplicated, typical sexual harassment action.  (See id. at pp. 3-4; see also, e.g., Motion, pp. 3, 6.)

Plaintiffs claim the case is complex because it requires management of a large number of witnesses and documents, there will be numerous pretrial motions, and Whittier might engage in discovery abuse.  (See Opposition, pp. 5-9 [asserting that Whittier engaged in discovery abuse in a pending defamation case involving Whittier and a non-perpetrator professor mentioned in Plaintiffs’ complaint].)

The Court denies the motion.  This does not appear to be a typical sexual harassment action.  There are three victims, not one, and they allege separate incidents, separate facts, and separate injuries with separate witnesses.  While the complaint alleges some typical sexual harassment allegations, it also alleges negligent supervision allegations and violations of the Unruh Act, the Bane Act, and the Unfair Competition Law.  (See Complaint, ¶¶ 85-211.)  Moreover, the complaint details Title IX investigations that preceded the filing of the complaint and that Plaintiffs claim were faulty.  (See, e.g., id. at ¶ 68.)  It is probable that witnesses and documents from those investigations will be part of Plaintiffs’ case, increasing discovery and the number of witnesses, documents, and pretrial motions the trial judge will need to handle.  Bottom line, the case satisfies enough Rule 3.400 factors to justify the complex designation.