Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 22STCV36133, Date: 2023-09-11 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: September 11, 2023

Case Name: Schulz v. Pitzer College, et al.

Case No.: (1) 21STCV18469

(2) 21STCV18241

Matter: Notice of Related Case 

Ruling: The Notices of Related Case are denied.

Schulz to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly 

encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

A notice of related case has been filed in both 21STCV18469 and 21STCV18241 as to case no. 23STCV10042.  

In 21STCV18241, Plaintiff Brendan Schulz filed a First Amended Complaint against Defendants Pitzer College (“Pitzer”), Janet Schwing, Nigel Boyle, and Melvin Oliver for (1) violation of the Unruh Act, (2) attempted extortion, (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (4) breach of contract, (5) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (6) intentional misrepresentation, (7) false promise, (8) willful misconduct, (9) reckless misconduct, and (10) concealment. Among other things, Plaintiff alleges that Pitzer failed to accommodate him as a student after he suffered a concussion because Plaintiff is a Jew.

In 21STCV18469, Schulz filed a First Amended Complaint against Pitzer for (1) breach of contract, (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (3) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and (4) willful misconduct.  Plaintiff alleges that Defendant fired/did not rehire him as a Resident Assistant because he is a Jew.  

In 23STCV10042, Schulz states that “[t]his case concerns Pitzer College retaliating against the plaintiff, a Pitzer College alumnus, for asserting his civil rights by filing an internal civil rights grievance with Pitzer College and the United States Department of Education Office of Civil Rights.”

The inquiry on a notice of related cases is whether the cases at issue (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 notices of related case are denied because 23STCV10042 relates to a different transactional nucleus than the older cases.  

Schulz to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.