Judge: Deirdre Hill, Case: 20TRCP00101, Date: 2022-09-13 Tentative Ruling

ALERT

Due to Coronavirus, please consider appearing by phone for Department M cases.

 

Department M strongly encourages the use of  LA CourtConnect* for ALL hearings, without need for prior approval, unless live testimony by a witness is required.

 

The contact information for LA CourtConnect* is:

 

 

 https://lacourt.portalscloud.com/VCourt/

 

 

*Parties with a fee waiver on file may be eligible to appear at no/reduced cost


Dept. M issues tentative rulings in many, but not all motion hearings. There is no set time at which tentatives are posted. Please do not call the staff to inquire if a tentative will be posted. 

If parties are satisfied with the ruling, parties may submit on the tentative. However, if an opposing party does not submit, they will be permitted to argue. Please check with the other side before calling the courtroom to submit. The staff does not keep track of which parties submitted and which did not, so please do not ask. 

If a matter is also a scheduling hearing (CMC, TSC, OSC etc) an appearance is still required even if a party submits on the tentative ruling.



Case Number: 20TRCP00101    Hearing Date: September 13, 2022    Dept: M

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Southwest District

Torrance Dept. M

 

DAVON DEAN, et al.,

 

 

 

Plaintiffs,

 

Case No.:

 

 

20TRCP00101

 

vs.

 

 

[Tentative] RULING

 

 

JANET TAYLOR, et al.,

 

 

 

Defendants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hearing Date:                          September 13, 2022   

 

Moving Parties:                      Defendant Lennox School District

Responding Party:                  Plaintiffs Davon Dean, et al.

Motion for Separate Trials

 

            The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers.

RULING

            The motion is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

On June 12, 2020, plaintiffs Davon Dean, Hugo Aceves, and Juan Abel Gomez filed a complaint against Lennox School District, Estate of Kent Taylor, deceased, and Janet Taylor, successor in interest of Kent Taylor for (1) sexual harassment quid pro quo, (2) hostile work environment harassment, (3) failure to prevent harassment, (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress, and (5) negligent infliction of emotional distress.  Plaintiffs allege that they are three males and employees of defendant who were sexually harassed by the former superintendent of the Lennox School District.

On February 23, 2021, plaintiffs filed a request for dismissal as to estate of Kent Taylor and Janet Taylor.

On June 2, 2021, a stipulation and protective order was entered.

           

On April 22, 2022, the court granted defendant’s motion for leave to amend answer.  The court also granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel further deposition responses and document production as to Janet Taylor.

On June 2, 2022, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion to strike defendant’s supplemental expert designation.

On August 30, 2022, the court granted defendant’s motion to amend and to augment its expert witness designation.

On September 7, 2022, the court denied without prejudice defendant’s motion to compel production of medical records.

Trial is scheduled for October 19, 2022.

LEGAL AUTHORITY

Under CCP §379.5, “[w]hen parties have been joined under Section 378 or 379, the court may make such orders as may appear just to prevent any party from being embarrassed, delayed, or put to undue expense, and may order separate trials or make such other order as the interests of justice may require.”

Under CCP §598, “[t]he court may, when the convenience of witnesses, the ends of justice, or the economy and efficiency of handling the litigation would be promoted thereby, on motion of a party, after notice and hearing, make an order . . . that the trial of any issue or any part thereof shall precede the trial of any other issue or any part thereof in the case . . . .”

Under CCP §1048(b), “[t]he court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy, may order a separate trial of any cause of action . . . or of any separate issue or of any number of causes of action or issues.”

DISCUSSION

            Defendant Lennox Unified School District requests an order for separate trials for each of the three plaintiffs, resulting in three separate trials pursuant to CCP §379.5, 598, and 1048.

            Defendant argues that there is not a common nucleus of facts that support that the action should be tried in a single trial, and three separate trials would serve the interests of justice, reduce the chance of prejudice to defendant or confusion to a jury, and would streamline the issues at trial as each plaintiff’s claims are unrelated and stem from completely separate individual unique situations and occurrences.  Defendant asserts that plaintiffs held different job titles and had different job duties and pay and that they worked at different time frames and in different offices. Defendant also contends that each plaintiff alleges separate and unique damages.  Further, defendant argues that each of the plaintiff’s allegations are “wholly irrelevant” to the other plaintiffs.

            In opposition, plaintiffs argue that the motion should be denied because separate trials would be inefficient and “an enormous waste of court and attorney resources.”  Plaintiffs contend that all three plaintiffs have alleged they were sexually harassed and abused by the same person and that the “modus operandi” was the same as to each plaintiff.

            In reply, defendant reiterates its arguments, including that the “introduction of irrelevant and immaterial evidence” would prejudice defendant.

            The court finds that separate trials would not be conducive to expedition and economy or in furtherance of convenience.

            The motion is DENIED.

            Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of ruling.