Judge: Joel R Wohlfeil, Case: 37-2023-00029738-CU-PO-CTL, Date: 2024-05-31 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - May 30, 2024

05/31/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-73 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Joel R. Wohlfeil

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Other Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00029738-CU-PO-CTL M VS SAN DIEGO ROCK CHURCH [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Consolidate Cases, 04/18/2024

The Motion (ROA # 184) of Defendants PACIFIC COAST ACADEMY, DEBORAH KOHL and EMILY MENDENHALL ('Pacific Coast Academy Defendants') for an order that this matter be consolidated with the case of Torriana Florey, in her individual capacity and as successor in interest for Decedent Arabella McCormack v. County of San Diego, a public entity, et. al., San Diego Superior Court Case No.

37-2023-00039951-CUPO-CTL, and presently pending in Department C-71, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

The Court deems the Florey action to be related to the current action and directs that the Florey action be transferred to department 73, as discussed below.

The Joinder (ROA # 214) of Defendants San Diego Rock Church, Kevin Johnstone & Mickey Stonier ('Defendants Rock Church') to this Motion, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as discussed herein.

The Joinder (ROA # 216) of Plaintiffs to this Motion, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as discussed herein.

The Joinder (ROA # 218) of Defendants County of San Diego, Shara Freeman, Dennis Leggett, Omar Avila, and Daisy Gudino ('Defendants County') to this Motion, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as discussed herein.

The Joinder (ROA # 223) of Specially Appearing Third Parties in Interest New Alternatives, Inc., Laura Pacheco, Esther Santos, Victoria Collins, and Tiyler Winslow to this Motion, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as discussed herein.

Consolidation of actions involving 'a common question of law or fact' is permissible in order to avoid unnecessary costs or delay. Code Civ. Proc. 1048(a).

Actions may be consolidated, in the discretion of the court, whenever it can be done without prejudice to a substantial right. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1956) 47 Cal. 2d 428, 430.

'... [I]t is possible that actions may be thoroughly 'related' in the sense of having common questions of law or fact, and still not be 'consolidated,' if the trial court, in the sound exercise of its discretion, chooses not to do so.' Askew v. Askew (1994) 22 Cal. App. 4th 942, 964.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3118261 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  M VS SAN DIEGO ROCK CHURCH [IMAGED]  37-2023-00029738-CU-PO-CTL There are two types of consolidation: a complete consolidation resulting in a single action, and a consolidation of separate actions for trial. Sanchez v. Superior Court (1988) 203 Cal. App. 3d 1391, 1396.

Complete consolidation may be utilized where the parties are identical and the causes could have been joined. Id. The pleadings are regarded as merged, one set of findings is made, and one judgment is rendered. Id. In a consolidation for trial, the pleadings, verdicts, findings and judgments are kept separate; the actions are simply tried together for the sake of convenience and judicial economy. Id. In this action, the notice of motion appears to seek complete consolidation ('for all purposes'). This is improper because the parties are not identical. Plaintiffs are not the same. Some of Defendants are not alleged in both actions. As a result, complete consolidation will not be ordered at this time; however, the Florey action will be transferred to department 73 and a coordinated time line provided to the parties to enable the parties to conduct discovery and pre-trial motions as economically as is reasonably possible.

However, the pleadings, verdicts, findings and judgments will be kept separate.

Both actions involve the same chain of underlying facts and circumstances. Both actions also involve a common issue regarding the standing of the respective Plaintiffs to pursue a wrongful death action on behalf of the decedent. Both actions involve common issues regarding the liability of Defendants.

Having these matters determined in different courtrooms, by different judges and / or juries would be inefficient and could lead to inconsistent results as to standing and liability issues.

Transfer of both cases to be managed by the same Judge, combined with a coordinated time line, permits for combined discovery, which will be much more efficient and less intrusive.

The Voices for Children opposition argues consolidation will be prejudicial because its Demurrer raising standing is presently on calendar in department 71. However, it appears Plaintiff Florey is in the process of filing a First Amended Complaint, which will take this Demurrer off calendar in any event. The threshold issue of standing should be decided by the same Judge in the related cases to avoid inconsistent rulings.

The Voices for Children opposition and the Florey opposition both argue that the Florey action involves many additional Defendants. However, Voices for Children and Florey are already participating in the action with more Defendants. They will not experience additional inefficiencies if they are compelled to participate in both actions. Most of the additional Defendants are associated with the entity Defendants, which are already involved in the A. M. action.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3118261