Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 24NWCV00917, Date: 2024-10-23 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 24NWCV00917, Date: 2024-10-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NWCV00917 Hearing Date: October 23, 2024 Dept: C

MARTINEZ VS. FIRST CLASS VENDING, INC.

CASE NO.: 24NWCV00917, 24NWCV00919, 24NWCV00920, 24NWCV00921, and 24NWCV00922

HEARING: 10/23/24 @ 9:30 A.M.

#5 to #9

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendant First Class Vending, Inc’s Motion to Consolidate is GRANTED. Case No. 24NWCV00917 (“the Subject Action”) is hereby consolidated with Case Nos. 24NWCV00919, 24NWCV00920, 24NWCV00921, and 24NWCV00922 with the Subject Action acting as the lead case.

All dates in Case Nos. 24NWCV00919, 24NWCV00920, 24NWCV00921, and 24NWCV00922 are hereby VACATED. The dates already set in the Subject Action remain set.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Plaintiffs Valeria Duarte Martinez, Cyntia Marquez Duarte, Christian Marquez Duarte, Adrianna Guerrero, and Alfonse Marquez Duarte are former employees of Defendant First Class Vending, Inc. (“Defendant”). All are members of the same family, and all were terminated by Defendant on the same day in July 2023. All filed suit against Defendant on the same day in March 2024 alleging race and national origin discrimination. Defendant moves to consolidate Valeria Duarte Martinez v. First Class Vending, Inc. (24NWCV00917) (“the Subject Action”) with the four other cases for discovery, pretrial motions, and trial.

California Rule of Court, rule 3.350 states that a notice of motion to consolidate must:

(A) List all named parties in each case, the names of those who have appeared, and the names of their respective attorneys of record;

(B) Contain the captions of all the cases sought to be consolidated, with the lowest numbered case shown first; and

Defendant has met the above-stated procedural requirements.

Trial courts may consolidate actions involving common questions of law or fact. (CCP §1048.) Consolidating actions does not affect the rights of the parties. Consolidation’s purpose is to avoid unnecessary costs or delay, avoid procedural duplication, particularly in proof or issues common to both actions, and avoid inconsistent results by hearing and deciding common issues together. (Estate of Baker (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 471, 485.) Deciding a motion to consolidate rests in the trial court’s sounds discretion and will not be reversed except upon a clear abuse of discretion showing. (Feliner v. Steinbaum (1955) 132 Cal.App.2d 509, 511.) Two types of consolidation are available: “(a) When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay. (b) The court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trial will be conducive to expedition and economy, may order a sperate trial of any cause of action, including a cause of action asserted in a cross-complaint, or of any separate issue or of any number of causes of action or issues, preserving the right of trial by jury….” (CCP §1048.)

Each case presents its own facts and circumstances, but trial courts generally consider the following factors: (1) the timeliness of the motion: whether granting consolidation would delay the trial of any of the cases involved; (2) complexity: whether joining the actions involved would make the trial too confusing or complex for a jury; and (3) prejudice: whether consolidation would adversely affect the rights of any party (State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1956) 47 Cal.2d.428, 430-431.) In deciding a motion consolidate, a court should weigh whether the common issues predominate over the individual issues and whether any risks of jury confusion or prejudice to the parties outweigh reducing time and expense that would result from the consolidation. (Todd-Stenberg v. Shield (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 946, 978.)

In the moving papers, Defendant argues that all five actions should be consolidated because they are based on the same set of underlying facts and involve the same defendant and the same witnesses. For example, the Complaint in the Subject Action alleges: “On or about July 11, 2023, Plaintiff’s daughter Cintya Duarte, on behalf of herself and her four family members, reported and complained to another superior, Alex Zendejas (“Zendejas”), about her supervisor’s pervasive harassment. Plaintiff was terminated the following day, along with her four family members.” (Complaint by Valerie Duarte Martinez, ¶19.) This language is repeated in each of the other four complaints, except for each Plaintiff’s relation to Cintya Duarte (e.g., daughter, sister, sister-in-law).

In opposition, Plaintiff argues the claims are not identical because Plaintiff Valeria Duarte sues for age discrimination while the other plaintiffs do not. In addition, Plaintiff Christian Marquez Duarte filed a motion for leave to amend complaint on September 11, 2024, to allege claims of sexual harassment and negligent hiring, supervision, and retention against defendant First Class Vending, Inc, and Yesenia Sanchez. Yesenia Sanchez is only a named defendant in Plaintiff Christian Marquez Duarte’s case. Also, Plaintiff Christian Marquez Duarte’s minor brother was subject to similar claims of sexual harassment and he, too, filed a lawsuit.

In reply, Defendant argues that the standard is not identical claims, but common questions of law or fact. Defendant acknowledges that there is a single difference between the five pleadings, i.e. Plaintiff Valeria Duarte’s age discrimination cause of action. Defendant argues that the Court can order a separate trial of any cause of action based on Code of Civil Procedure, section 1048, subdivision (b). Defendant also argues that Plaintiff Christan Marquez Duarte’s motion for leave to file amended complaint will not be decided until June 10, 2025; thus, the new claims and new defendant are not at issue or relevant to the instant motion. Also, the complaint against Defendant by Plaintiff Christian Marquez Duarte’s brother is not relevant because it was filed after the instant motion.

It is undisputed that all five cases involve the same operative facts — Plaintiffs’ termination by Defendant on or about July 12, 2023. It is also undisputed that the related cases involve the same parties and will likely involve some or all of the same witnesses. In the interests of judicial efficiency, the Court finds that the actions involve common questions of law and fact, and they should be consolidated. Therefore, the Motion to Consolidate is GRANTED. Issues of severance, bifurcation and any other related issues may be raised by the parties at a later time, if necessary.