Judge: David S. Cunningham, Case: JCCP5289, Date: 2023-08-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: JCCP5289    Hearing Date: August 16, 2023    Dept: 11

Stoneledge Furniture Discount Cases (JCCP 5289)

Tentative Ruling Re: Petition for Coordination

Date:                                                   8/16/23

Time:                                                  11:00 am

Moving Party:                                   Ryan Cornateanu (“Petitioner”)

Opposing Party:                                Ashley Global Retail, LLC (“AGR”) and the Aberl Plaintiffs[1]

Department:                                      11

Judge:                                                David S. Cunningham III

________________________________________________________________________

TENTATIVE RULING

Petitioner’s petition for coordination and stay request are denied.

BACKGROUND

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

* Cornateanu v. Stoneledge Furniture, LLC, Case No. 21STCV09403 (Los Angeles Superior Court); and

* Aberl v. Ashley Global Retal, LLC, Case No. 37-2023-00011536-CU-BT-NC (San Diego Superior Court).

Petitioner describes the Included Actions as consumer-rights putative class actions on behalf of customers who purchased products from Defendants.  Petitioner contends Defendants charged the customers above the invoice prices.

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. 

DISCUSSION

I.         Complex Determination

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;

(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(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 . . . .

(Id. at rule 3.400(c).)

Cornateanu and Aberl are provisionally complex given that they assert class claims.  Rule 3.400 is satisfied.

II.        Code of Civil Procedure Section 404.1

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.

(Code Civ. Proc. § 404.1.)

A.        Predominating Common Questions

Petitioner contends common questions predominate because the Included Actions “assert the same causes of action on behalf of overlapping putative class members.”  (Petitioner’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities (“MP&A”), p. 5.)

AGR contends there is no overlap between the Included Actions.  Stoneledge Furniture, LLC (“SLF”) is AGR’s subsidiary.  The Cornateanu action is a California putative class action against SLF only.  Aberl is a nationwide putative class action against SLF and AGR.  According to AGR’s counsel, the parties reached a settlement in Aberl and agreed to carve out the Cornateanu putative class members from the settlement to ensure expeditious approval.  (See Barnidge Decl., ¶ 7; see also AGR’s Opposition, pp. 1, 5, 6; Aberl Plaintiffs’ Opposition, pp. 4-6.)

This factor favors denial. In light of defense counsel’s representation, the Court agrees that the Cornateanu and Aberl putative classes do not overlap.  Individual issues predominate.

B.        Convenience of the Parties, Witnesses, and Counsel

This factor favors denial.  Typically, deciding common issues in one forum conveniences the parties, witnesses, and counsel, but the situation here is different. Given the carve out and predominating individual issues, coordination would be inconvenient. 

C.        Development of the Cases and the Work Product of Counsel

This factor favors denial.  Cornateanu and Aberl are at different stages.  Cornateanu is two years older than Aberl, yet Aberl has settled.  Since the putative classes do not overlap, coordination of discovery and motion practice would not provide the usual benefits and efficiencies.

D.        Efficient Use of Judicial Resources and Manpower

This factor favors denial.  For the reasons stated in sections II.A. and II.B, the threat of separate courts duplicating case efforts on the same issues and claims is low. 

E.        Calendars of the Courts

This factor is neutral.  Petitioner’s brief fails to address the specific, individual court calendars. 

F.         Duplicative and Inconsistent Rulings

This factor favors denial. The analysis is the same as sections II.A., II.B., and II.D.

G.        Likelihood of Settlement in the Absence of Coordination

Petitioner asserts that, without coordination, the parties’ “incentive to pursue settlement negotiations” in either action would be reduced.  (Petitioner’s MP&A, p. 10.)

This factor favors denial.  The inquiry is not whether coordination would promote settlement; it is whether settlement is expected “without further litigation should coordination be denied.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 404.1.)  Aberl has settled.  Coordination would cause approval to be delayed, which could negatively impact the settlement.

H.        Summary

On balance, the coordination factors support denial. The Court finds that the petition for coordination should be denied.

III.      Site for the Coordinated Proceedings

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).) 

This issue is moot.

IV.       Stay Request

Petitioner asks the Court to stay the Included Actions pending coordination. (See Petitioner’s MP&A, pp. 11-12.)

The request is denied.