Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 22STCV10943, Date: 2024-01-05 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

Case Number: 22STCV10943    Hearing Date: January 5, 2024    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

The Court has considered the opposition papers filed by the parties in: (1) E.J. v. Los Angeles Unified School District, Case No. 22STCV10943; (2) M.M. v. Los Angeles Unified School District, Case No. 23STCV11578; (3) O.B. v. Los Angeles Unified School District, Case No. 22STCV11052; (4) A.H. v. Los Angeles Unified School District, Case No. 23STCV11711; (5) G.B. v. Los Angeles Unified School District, Case No. 23STCV09475; and (6) R.J. v. Los Angeles Unified School District, Case No. 22STCV11004.

Under California Rules of Court (“CRC”), rule 3.300, a pending civil case is related to another pending civil case, or to a civil case that was dismissed with or without prejudice, or to a civil case that was disposed of by judgment, if 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.  (CRC, r. 3.300(a)(1)-(4).)  

            Although these cases involve abuse claims alleged against the same Defendant, the individual claims raised by each Plaintiff involve distinct facts such that the Court finds that relating the cases would not be in the interest of judicial efficiency or economy.  The Court therefore deems these cases unrelated.

  Dated this 5th day of January 2024