Judge: David S. Cunningham, Case: JCCP5337, Date: 2024-09-11 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: JCCP5337    Hearing Date: September 11, 2024    Dept: 11

AUTOZONE SUITABLE SEATING CASES (JCCP 5337)

 

Tentative Ruling Re: Petition for Coordination

 

Date:                                       9/11/24

Time:                                      2:30 pm

Moving Party:                       Monica Meda and Autozoners, LLC (collectively “Petitioners”)

Opposing Party:                    None

Department:                          11

Judge:                                    David S. Cunningham III

________________________________________________________________________

 

TENTATIVE RULING

 

Petitioners’ petition for coordination is granted. 

 

The Court recommends the Los Angeles Superior Court as the site for the coordination proceedings, and the recommended reviewing court is the Second District Court of Appeal.

 

Petitioners’ stay request is granted.

 

BACKGROUND

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

 

* Meda v. Autozone, Inc. (BC683600 [Los Angeles Superior Court]); and

 

* Gonzalez v. Autozoners, LLC (23CV411824 [Santa Clara Superior Court]).

 

The Included Actions are overlapping representative actions brought under the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) for alleged violations of Wage Order 7-2001’s suitable-seating requirements.

 

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.  (Edmon & Karnow, Cal. Practice Guide: Civ. Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group June 2023 Update) ¶ 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).)

 

The Los Angeles Superior Court and Santa Clara Superior Court already deemed the Included Actions complex.  (See 8/19/24 Meda Minute Order, p. 1; see also Asterlin Decl., Ex. C, pp. 1-2.)  Moreover, the Court is persuaded that the cases will involve similar discovery, complicated procedural issues and motions, and the need to manage several witnesses and a substantial amount of documentary evidence.  These factors satisfy rule 3.400.

 

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.

 

(Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 404.1.)

 

A.        Predominating Common Questions

 

This factor favors coordination.  As noted above, the Included Actions allege overlapping representative PAGA claims concerning alleged violations of Wage Order 7-2001’s suitable-seating requirements.  Because of the overlap, common questions predominate as to whether Defendants’ policies and practices comply with California law, especially whether Defendants provided compliant seating to its non-exempt hourly employees.  (See Petitioners’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities (“MP&A”), p. 9.)  These questions should be heard by one judge to ensure uniformity.

 

B.        Convenience of the Parties, Witnesses, and Counsel

 

This factor favors coordination.  Defense counsel is the same in both cases, and there will be similar (perhaps identical) corporate witnesses.  Managing discovery and deciding the common issues and claims in one forum would convenience the parties, their witnesses, and their counsel, and it would advance efficiency.  (See id. at pp. 9-10; see also Asterlin Dec., ¶ 16.)

 

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

 

This factor is neutral or favors coordination.  Meda is older than Gonzalez by more than five years.  (See Petitioners’ MP&A, pp. 10-12.)  Motions for summary judgment and to compel arbitration have been heard in Meda, and appeals have been decided.  (See ibid.; see also Asterlin Decl., ¶¶ 17-21.)  Nevertheless, the cases appear to be in similar, early stages regarding the merits of the representative claims (see Asterlin Decl., ¶¶ 22-24 [declaring that prior motions and discovery in Meda focused on standing and the Plaintiff’s individual claim]), so coordination probably would be beneficial despite the age difference.

 

D.        Efficient Use of Judicial Resources and Manpower

 

This factor favors coordination.  Absent coordination, separate courts would have to duplicate case efforts on the same issues and claims.  Parallel litigation of the same issues and claims in multiple locations would result in unnecessary consumption of judicial resources.  (See Petitioners’ MP&A, pp. 12-13; see also Asterlin Decl., ¶¶ 25-26.)

 

E.        Calendars of the Courts

 

This factor is neutral.  Petitioners’ brief fails to address the congestion levels of the specific, individual court calendars.

 

F.         Duplicative and Inconsistent Rulings

 

This factor favors coordination.  Since the complaints raise the same or similar issues and claims concerning the same alleged suitable-seating violations, there is a risk that the courts would make duplicative or inconsistent key rulings, orders, or judgments – with respect to both discovery and legal questions – if coordination were denied.  (See Petitioners’ MP&A, p. 13; see also Asterlin Decl., ¶ 27.)  The Court believes coordination would lower this risk and advance the goal of “uniform and centralized resolution on appeal.”  (McGhan Medical Corp. v. Superior Court (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 804, 814.)

 

G.        Likelihood of Settlement in the Absence of Coordination

 

This factor is neutral or favors coordination.  The inquiry is not whether coordination would promote settlement; it is whether settlement is expected “without further litigation should coordination be denied.”  (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 404.1.)  Neither case has settled so far.  Nothing in the record suggests that Defendants intend to settle prior to filing discovery motions and, possibly, merits motions.  Some additional litigation seems likely.  (See also Asterlin Decl., ¶¶ 28-29.)

 

H.        Summary

 

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

 

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.  (See 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 is pending here, and most of the attorneys reside and have offices in Southern California.  (See Asterlin Decl., 5.)  The Los Angeles Superior Court’s complex program has sufficient resources and expertise to manage the Included Actions. Also, apart from the availability of remote appearances via LACourtConnect, it is a convenient and accessible location.

 

The Court recommends the Second District Court of Appeal as the reviewing appellate court.

 

IV.       Stay

 

Petitioners’ request to stay the Included Actions pending coordination is granted.