Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 23BBCV02223, Date: 2023-12-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV02223    Hearing Date: December 8, 2023    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations

Plaintiffs Stacey and LaNette Heselton (“Plaintiffs”) allege that on September 26, 2021, they were involved in a motor vehicle accident with Defendants Pedro Espinoza (“Espinoza”), Flock Freight, Inc. (“Flock”), and Roline Express, Inc. (“Roline”).  Plaintiffs allege that Espinoza was employed by Roline as a truck driver and that Roline and Flock had the right to control the means, methods, and details of how Espinoza performed his work. 

Plaintiffs allege that on September 26, 2023 at approximately 5:59 a.m., “Plaintiff” was operating a police vehicle that was rightfully stopped on the shoulder of Interstate 70 in the State of Illinois with the emergency lights activated on his vehicle.  (Compl., ¶14.)  Plaintiffs allege that around that time, Espinoza was driving a tractor trailer (originally from Los Angeles, California to Sunbury, Pennsylvania), ran off the roadway in the County of Fayette in the State of Illinois, ran off the roadway, and struck the rear of Plaintiff’s vehicle.  (Id., ¶15.)  As a result, Plaintiffs allege that Stacey Heselton suffered severe and permanent injuries.  Plaintiff LaNette Heselton alleges that she has been deprived of the services, support, assistance, etc. from her spouse as a result of the accident. 

The complaint, filed September 25, 2023, alleges causes of action for: (1) negligence against Espinoza; (2) vicarious liability against Roline and Flock; and (3) negligent hiring, training, retention, entrustment, supervision, agency, joint enterprise and venture against Flock and Roline. 

B.     Motion on Calendar

On November 13, 2023, Defendant Flock Freight, Inc. filed a motion to quash service of the summons and complaint. 

On November 27, 2023, Plaintiffs filed an opposition brief.

On November 30, 2023, Defendant filed a reply brief.

DISCUSSION

Flock moves to quash service of the summons and complaint, arguing that the Court lacks jurisdiction over Flock as a result of a previously filed case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, involving the same parties, the same case and controversy, and identical claims against Flock.  Flock argues that it had filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the federal court action on September 1, 2023, bringing the recently decided Ye v. GlobalTranz Enterprises, Inc. (7th Cir. 2023) 74 F.4th 453 to Plaintiffs’ attention, and that Plaintiffs thereafter “opportunistically” are seeking to file their case in California to rely on the Ninth Circuit’s approach in Miller v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (9th Cir. 2020) 976 F.3d 1016.  (Reply at p.2.) 

Flock argues that the federal court case (Heselton et al. v. Espinoza et al., Civil Action No. 3:21-cv-1592 DWD) has been pending since December 2021.  (Pavlovich Decl., ¶2.)  Flock’s counsel, Jeffrey Pavlovich, states that the U.S. District Court previously entered a scheduling order in the federal case set for March 2024, the parties have engaged in discovery and motion practice, and Plaintiffs have filed multiple amended complaints against Flock in the federal case (most recently the SAC on July 11, 2023).  (Id., ¶¶3-4.)  Mr. Pavlovich states that the federal court entered an order on October 24, 2023 granting Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss without prejudice, but Flock intends to appeal the decision with jurisdiction remaining in federal court until a final determination is made on appeal.  (Id., ¶5.)  Flock argues that this is an improper attempt to forum shop and find a more favorable venue by Plaintiffs in California and outside the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal. 

In opposition, Plaintiffs argue that the motion is untimely, this Court has personal and subject matter jurisdiction over the action, Flock has waived any claim to a stay and a stay would be inappropriate where the other pending action was dismissed without prejudice.

First, Plaintiffs argue that Flock had until October 28, 2023 to file this motion (i.e., 30 days from the date of service on September 28, 2023), but that Flock filed the motion on November 13, 2023.  (See CCP § 418.10(a)(1).)  The Court may allow a further time to file the motion for good cause.  While this particular argument has not been addressed by Flock in the reply brief, the Court will hear the motion on its merits as the parties have each addressed the substantive merits of the motion.

Turning to the substantive merits of the motion, the Court denies the motion to quash.  While this may be an attempt by Plaintiffs to forum shop, this Court technically has jurisdiction over the matter.  The parties do not dispute that Defendants are located in California.  Flock and Roline are headquartered in California and Espinoza is domiciled in California.  The complaint alleges common law negligence causes of action arising out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred between Plaintiffs in Illinois with Defendants who are domiciled/headquartered in California.  Thus, the Court has personal and subject matter jurisdiction over the parties and claims in this action. 

In addition, the federal court action has now been dismissed, such that there are no issues regarding concurrent state and federal court actions.  As there is only one pending action, there is no risk of conflicting judgments.  While Flock states that it has filed an appeal regarding the federal court action, staying this case pending the appeal would result in a delay of this California case and the appeal does not necessarily encompass the matters at issue before this Court.  As pointed out by Plaintiffs, denying this motion to quash on the basis that an appeal has been filed could effectively and prematurely foreclose Plaintiffs’ ability to bring this action in California (particularly in the event if the Seventh Circuit affirms the dismissal in the federal case). 

For the first time in the reply brief, Flock argues that the physicians, and police witnesses are all located in Illinois.  The inconvenience of witnesses was not raised in the initial motion papers and there is no evidence to support this argument (by way of declarations of the witnesses, traffic collision reports, or any other documentary evidence).  Thus, the Court is not aware of how many witnesses there are or that would potentially be called.  Nevertheless, witnesses may be compelled to attend the trial and there are means to conduct discovery and depositions remotely.  Objections by Plaintiff to the admissibility of discovery that would have been admissible in the Federal Action will be closely scrutinized.  Likewise, the Court does not expect that a progression of law and motion that has already been worked through in Federal Court will once again be worked through in this Court.

For the reasons discussed above, the motion to quash is denied. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Defendant Flock Freight, Inc.’s motion to quash the service of the summons and complaint is denied.

Defendant shall provide notice of this order.

Warning regarding electronic appearances:  All software for remote or electronic appearances is subject to malfunction based on system weakness and human error, which can originate from any of the multiple parties participating each morning. The seamless operation of the Court’s electronic appearance software is dependent on numerous inconstant and fluctuating factors that may impact whether you, or other counsel or the Court itself can be heard in a particular case. Not all these factors are within the control of the courtroom staff. For example, at times, the system traps participants in electronic purgatories where they cannot be heard and where the courtroom staff is not aware of their presence. If you call the courtroom, please be respectful of the fact that a court hearing is going on, and that the courtroom staff is doing their best to use an imperfect system. If it is truly important to you to be heard, please show up to the courtroom in the normal way.