Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 24CHCV03252, Date: 2025-03-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24CHCV03252    Hearing Date: March 27, 2025    Dept: F43

Dept. F43

Date: 03-27-25

Case # 24CHCV03252, Yaya v. Smyth-Medina, et al.

Trial Date: None set.

MOTION TO RELATE CASES

MOVING PARTY: Dr. Robert Smyth-Medina

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Peter N. Yaya

RELIEF REQUESTED

Order deeming case numbers 24CHCV03252 and 22CHCV00124 related.

RULING: Motion is denied.

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On September 10, 2024, plaintiff Peter N. Yaya (Plaintiff) filed this disability discrimination case (24CHCV03252) against defendants Dr. Robert Smyth-Medina and California Eye Management Services, LP (Defendants) alleging Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff in providing services for an eye injury.

In February 2022, Plaintiff filed a separate disability discrimination case (22CHCV00124) against a SC Medical, Inc. alleging that SC Medical’s staff discriminated against Plaintiff because Plaintiff did not wear a mask in SC Medical’s medical facility.  This case was dismissed in May 2023.

On January 10, 2025, Defendants filed a notice of related case number 22CHCV00124.  Defendant filed an opposition on January 21, 2025.  No reply has been filed.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Defendants assert that the court should deem case numbers 24CHCV03252 and 22CHCV00124 related.  Defendants do not describe how or why the cases are related.

Plaintiff Yaya opposes arguing the cases involve different unrelated defendants who operate different types of practices, the cases involve distinct claims, and the cases arise from different incidents.  There is no risk of duplicative judicial resources because one of the cases has already been dismissed with prejudice, and each case requires different evidence.  Defendants’ collateral estoppel defense, raised in Defendants’ Answer, lacks merit because Defendants have no privity to case number 22CHCV00124.  Finally, the timing of the motion (January 8, 2025, four months after case 24CHCV03252 was filed) is suspicious.

ANALYSIS

Cases are related when they (1) involve the same parties and are based on the same or similar claims, (2) arise from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact, (3) involve claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the same property, or (4) are likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a).)

The court has reviewed the operative complaints filed in case numbers 22CHCV00124 (Case #1) and 24CHCV03252 (Case #2).  Both actions involve defendants allegedly discriminating against Plaintiff based on Plaintiff’s disability.

Plaintiff filed Case #1 on February 24, 2022.  Case #1 arises from defendant SC Medical, Inc.’s alleged refusal to address Plaintiff’s medical needs when Plaintiff refused to wear a mask into defendant’s medical facility on December 21, 2021.  Plaintiff had an exemption from wearing a mask.  Plaintiff was required to step outside the facility away from other masked individuals which made Plaintiff feel humiliated.  Case #1 alleges causes of action for violations of Civil Code sections 46, subd. (a), 51, subd. (b); violation of California’s Patient’s Bill of Rights, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.  On April 11, 2023, the court granted defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings with prejudice, dismissed the case, and entered judgment on May 3, 2023.  Plaintiff subsequently appealed the trial court’s holding, and the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s holding on December 23, 2024.

Plaintiff filed Case #2 on September 10, 2024.  Case #2 arises from defendants Dr. Robert Smyth-Medina and California Eye Management Services’ alleged refusal to treat Plaintiff’s eye injury when Plaintiff refused to wear a mask into defendant’s medical facility on September 14, 2022.  Plaintiff was required to step into a hallway in the facility away from other masked individuals which made Plaintiff feel humiliated.  Case #2 alleges causes of action for violations of Civil code sections 51, subd. (b), 54.1, tortious interference with doctor-patient relationship, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

These cases do not arise from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events, and Defendants did not file the notice of related case in both cases.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a)(2), (e).)  Although both cases involve the same plaintiff and discuss disability discrimination, each case involves different defendants, and the alleged incidents occurred one year apart at two separate facilities.

Additionally, Defendants’ motion is untimely. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.300(d) [requiring the moving party to file no later than 15 days after facts concerning the existence of the related cases become known].) Defendants’ Answer, filed December 9, 2024, asserts a collateral estoppel defense based on Case #1.  This indicates that Defendants knew about the related case as early as December 9, 2024, yet waited until over a month later to file the notice.

Accordingly, the court denies Defendants Dr. Robert Smyth-Medina and California Eye Management Services, LP’s request to relate case numbers 22CHCV000124 and 24CHCV03252.

CONCLUSION

Defendants Dr. Robert Smyth-Medina and California Eye Management Services’ notice of related cases is denied.

Defendants Dr. Robert Smyth-Medina and California Eye Management Services to give notice.