Judge: Elaine Lu, Case: 24STCV28553, Date: 2025-02-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV28553    Hearing Date: February 28, 2025    Dept: 9

The Court hereby distributes a tentative ruling for the Case Management Order.  The parties are welcome to provide input and propose modification(s) to any aspect of the CMO at the Initial Status Conference.  If all parties submit on the tentative CMO prior to the commencement of the February 28, 2025 ISC, the Court will adopt the tentative CMO, and the parties need not appear. 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Arely Cedillo v Kaiser Permanente International,

24STCV28553

                                            [TENTATIVE] CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

            This action has been designated as complex pursuant to CRC 3.400(a), and thus requires exceptional judicial management. All provisions of this CMO are deemed necessary to carry out the purposes of Rule 3.400(a), and to promote effective decision-making by the Court. They are based upon individual consideration of this complex action, including the Status Conference Reports previously filed by the parties.

1.               In the Joint Initial Status Conference Response Statement, Defendant asserts that on December 3, 2024, Defendant advised Plaintiff that his counsel, Wilshire Law Firm, is disqualified from representing Plaintiff and the putative class because John G. Yslas, a partner at Wilshire Law Firm, is a former partner at Seyfarth Shaw LLP (i.e., counsel for Defendant), and Yslas previously represented KPI and another Kaiser-related entity in cases involving essentially

identical claims as those raised in this case.  On December 10, 2024, in response to Defendant’s meet and confer letter, Plaintiff’s counsel notified Defendant that Plaintiff “is seeking representation from another law firm to continue litigating her claims.”

2.               The parties are to meet and confer regarding the disqualification issue that Defendant has raised.  If the parties are able to reach an agreement as to Plaintiff’s Counsel’s withdrawal from this action, the parties may file and serve a stipulation and proposed order, or Plaintiff may simply file and serve a Substitution of Counsel.  Otherwise, the Court hereby lifts the stay to permit Defendant to file and serve a Motion to Disqualify Plaintiff’s Counsel in the event the parties are unable to reach an agreement as to Plaintiff’s Counsel’s withdrawal from this action.  Defendant must file and serve any Motion to Disqualify Plaintiff’s Counsel by no later than April 29, 2025.  Before filing any motion, the moving party must contact the Court Staff in Department 9 to obtain a hearing date and a briefing schedule.  The Court sets a Non-Appearance Case Review Re: Filing and Serving of Defendant’s Motion to Disqualify Plaintiff’s Counsel for May 6, 2025, 8:30 AM, Department 9. 

3.               Discovery.  The stay on discovery shall remain in place until the Court rules on Defendant’s Motion to Disqualify Plaintiff’s Counsel and until Defendant files and serves an answer thereafter. 

4.               Potential Related Cases.  Counsel are ordered to file and serve a Notice of Related Case for any potentially related cases pursuant California Rule of court Rule 3.300, including any PAGA case involving the same representative plaintiff.  This is a continuing obligation on both plaintiffs and defendants while this case is pending.

Plaintiff is ordered to download the instant signed order from the Court’s website, to give formal notice to all other parties, and to file proof of service of such within five (5) days.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:          February 28, 2025      

                                                                                    __________________________

                                                                                    ELAINE LU

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court