Judge David S. Cunningham, Case JCCP5252 2022-10-25 Tentative Ruling

Petitioner’s petition for coordination is granted. The Court recommends the Los Angeles Superior Court as the site for the coordination proceedings and the Second District Court of Appeal as the reviewing court.

Petitioner submitted a petition to the Chairperson of the Judicial Council for pretrial coordination of the following cases (the “Included Actions”):

* Soto v. Sunwest Electric, Inc., Case No. 19STCV34189 (Los Angeles Superior Court);[1]

* Cruz v. Sunwest Electric, Inc., Case No. 30-2021-01207717-CU-OE-CXC (Orange Superior Court).[2]

The Included Actions are class and representative actions on behalf of Sunwest’s current and former hourly, non-exempt employees in California. The complaints allege similar “wage and hour” causes of action under the Labor Code, the UCL, and PAGA.[3]

On 9/22/22, the Chief Justice and Chair of the Judicial Council issued an order assigning this Court to sit as the coordination motion judge to determine whether the Included Actions are complex and, if so, whether coordination is appropriate.

Only “complex” cases may be coordinated. (Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Proc. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2021) ¶ 12:374.5.) 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(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;

(4) Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court; or

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

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

The Included Actions have already been deemed complex. (See Setoguchi Decl., Exs. H-J.) Additionally, the Court is persuaded that the cases will involve similar discovery, complicated procedural issues and motions, and management of several witnesses and a substantial amount of documentary evidence. These factors satisfy rule 3.400.

Section 404.1 states that a petition for coordination should be granted if doing so will “promote the ends of justice,” taking into account the following seven factors:

[W]hether the common question of fact or law is predominating and significant to the litigation; the convenience of parties, witnesses and counsel; the relative development of the actions and the work product of counsel; the efficient utilization of judicial facilities and manpower; the calendar of the courts; the disadvantages of duplicative and inconsistent rulings, orders, or judgments; and the likelihood of settlement of the actions without further litigation should coordination be denied.

This factor favors coordination. The Included Actions allege overlapping class and representative claims on behalf of the same current and former Sunwest non-exempt employees. Because of this, common questions predominate as to whether Sunwest’s policies and practices comply with California law, especially regarding minimum and overtime wages, meal and rest breaks, waiting time penalties, wage statements, etc. (See Petition, pp. 12-13.) These questions should be heard by one judge to ensure uniformity.

Coordination will reduce the need for multiple hearings and status conferences in different courts and avoid different and inconsistent court rulings; streamline written discovery and provide a uniform framework to handle discovery issues and motions to compel; make depositions and the scheduling of depositions more convenient for witnesses, the parties and counsel (particularly Sunwest’s witnesses who otherwise will be subject to depositions in two separate actions); and provide consistent case management so the parties can reasonably prepare for class certification or a motion to determine manageability, class or PAGA discovery, dispositive motions, expert discovery, and trial.

No one court in Southern California would be more convenient than another because Defendants employ employees across Southern California. The mere fact that the Soto and Harris Action is further along in Los Angeles County than the Cruz Action in Orange County is not sufficient to establish that it would be more convenient to litigate the actions in Los Angeles. Because the parties, witnesses, and counsel would have to travel within Southern California, it would not matter whether they travel to Orange County or Los Angeles.

The Court agrees with Petitioner. Soto is pending in the Los Angeles Superior Court. Cruz is pending nearby in the Orange Superior Court. All of the attorneys appear to be based in Los Angeles County. The convenience of the parties, witnesses, and counsel would best be served by litigating in one forum, including taking coordinated depositions with discovery supervised in one court and making court appearances in one court, not two.

Petitioner asserts that “no significant motion practice has occurred” in the Included Actions, and “no trial date has been set.” (Petition, p. 14.)

The Soto and Harris Action and Cruz Action are at completely different stages in litigation: the Soto and Harris Action was filed on September 26, 2019, with a class period going back to 2015, while the Cruz Action was recently filed on June 16, 2021, with a class period only going back to 2017. Further, there has been significant discovery conducted in the Soto and Harris Action, while no significant discovery has been conducted in the Cruz Action. [Citations.] Further, the parties in the Soto and Harris Action have participated in mediation and have a second mediation scheduled for January 2023. [Citation.] Therefore, coordination of these action[s] would significantly prejudice Plaintiffs Soto and Harris.

This factor favors coordination. Yes, Soto is more developed than Cruz in terms of class discovery, but coordination will advance the goal of minimizing duplicative discovery efforts. The fact remains that both actions are in the early stages. Merits and expert discovery still need to be conducted, motions still need to be filed and decided, and trial dates still need to be set. The Court believes coordinating discovery and motion practice will facilitate the prosecution and defense of both cases. (See, e.g., McGhan Medical Corp. v. Superior Court (1992) 11 Cal.App.4^th 804, 814 [instructing that “preparation for trial in terms of depositions, interrogatories, [and requests for] admissions . . . will be better achieved if done in a coordinated matter”].)

This factor favors coordination. Without coordination, separate courts will have to duplicate case efforts on the same issues and claims. Parallel litigation of the same issues and claims in multiple locations will result in unnecessary consumption of judicial resources.

This factor is neutral. Petitioner’s brief does not attach evidence addressing the courts’ individual calendars.

This factor favors coordination. Since the complaints raise the same or similar issues and claims concerning the same Sunwest non-exempt employees, there is a risk that the courts will make duplicative or inconsistent key rulings, orders, or judgments if coordination is denied. Coordination will lower this risk and advance the goal of “uniform and centralized resolution on appeal.” (McGhan, supra, 11 Cal.App.4^th at 814.)

If these two actions proceed separately, settlement is unlikely if similar claims remain pending in another venue. [Citation.] Coordination will allow the parties to explore a single, uniform settlement that would resolve all claims, would provide notice of settlement to the entire class or group of aggrieved employees, and would allow all class members the option to object to the settlement. [Citation.] Having counsel from all two cases support the settlement would also reduce the chances that any settlement could be challenged and streamline discovery. [Citation.]

This factor is neutral or favors coordination. The inquiry is not whether coordination will promote settlement; it is whether settlement is expected “without further litigation should coordination be denied.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 404.1.) Neither case has settled so far. Nothing in the record suggests that Petitioner intends to settle prior to filing discovery motions and, possibly, motions for summary judgment. Some additional litigation seems probable.

On balance, the coordination factors support coordination. The Court grants the petition.

Rule of Court 3.530(b) sets forth the factors that the coordination motion judge may consider in making a recommendation for the site of the coordination proceedings. The factors include: the number of included actions in particular locations; whether the litigation is at an advanced stage in a particular court; the efficient use of court facilities and judicial resources; the locations of witnesses and evidence; the convenience of the parties and witnesses; the parties' principal places of business; the office locations of counsel for the parties; and the ease of travel to and availability of accommodations in particular locations. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.530(b).)

Based on the weight of the factors, the Court recommends the Los Angeles Superior Court. The first-filed case (Soto) is pending here, the attorneys are based here, and Petitioner requests coordination here. (See Petition, pp. 6, 13-14.) The Los Angeles Superior Court's complex litigation program has sufficient resources and expertise to manage the Included Actions. It is a convenient and accessible location for many parties, witnesses, and counsel.

The Court selects the Second District Court of Appeal as the reviewing court with appellate jurisdiction.

[1] Soto is consolidated with Harris v. Sunwest Electric, Inc., Case No. 20STCV15078 (Los Angeles Superior Court).

[2] Cruz is consolidated with Cruz v. Sunwest Electric, Inc., Case No. 30-2021-01206152-CU-OE-CXC (Orange Superior Court).

[3] “UCL” means Unfair Competition Law. “PAGA” means Private Attorneys General Act.