Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV28302, Date: 2024-10-03 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV28302 Hearing Date: October 3, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On August 30, 2022, Plaintiffs Irmeh Manouki-Massihi, Vana Mehrabian, and Shara Mehrabian filed this action against Defendants City of Commerce (“City”), County of Los Angeles (“County”), Southern California Edison, and Does 1-50 for negligence, wrongful death, negligent infliction of emotional distress, survival action, and “California SB 447.”
On October 11, 2022, Defendant Southern California Edison Company (erroneously sued as Southern California Edison) (“Edison”) filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Kafil Construction (“Kafil Construction”), Bruce Johan Kafil, an individual, doing business as Kafil Construction (“Bruce Kafil”), Lotus LA, LLC (“Lotus”), and Roes 1-10 for equitable indemnity, apportionment of fault, and declaratory relief. On December 30, 2022, Kafil Construction, Bruce Kafil, and Lotus filed an answer to the cross-complaint. On December 26, 2023, Edison amended its cross-complaint to include Cross-Defendant City as Roe 1. On February 6, 2024, the City filed an answer to the cross-complaint.
On October 12, 2022, Plaintiffs amended the complaint to include Defendants Kafil Construction as Doe 1, Bruce Kafil as Doe 2, and Lotus as Doe 3.
Also on October 12, 2022, the City and County filed answers to Plaintiffs’ complaint. On January 5, 2024, the Court dismissed the County without prejudice at Plaintiffs’ request.
On June 9, 2023, Kafil Construction, Bruce Kafil, and Lotus filed an answer to Plaintiffs’ complaint and filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Edison and Does 51-60 for indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief. On July 25, 2023, Edison filed an answer to the cross-complaint.
On November 21, 2023, the City filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Edison, Kafil Construction, Bruce Kafil, Lotus, and Roes 1-50 for equitable contribution, implied indemnity, and declaratory relief. On December 26, 2023, Edison filed an answer to the cross-complaint. On December 28, 2023, Kafil Construction, Bruce Kafil, and Lotus filed an answer to the cross-complaint.
On November 29, 2023, the Court read and considered Edison’s Notice of Related Case filed on November 28, 2023 and found that case numbers 22STCV28302 and 23STLC03340 are not related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a).
On June 13, 2024, the Court read and considered Edison’s Notice of Related Case filed on June 11, 2024, which asked the Court to relate case numbers 22STCV28302, 23STLC03340, and 23STCV22007. The Court issued a minute order stating that case numbers 22STCV28302 and 23STLC03340 are not related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a).
On July 30, 2024, Edison filed a motion to have case numbers 22STCV28302, 23STLC03340, and 23STCV22007 related or, in the alternative, for reconsideration of the Court’s June 13, 2024 minute order. The motion was set for hearing on August 27, 2024. On August 14, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an opposition. On August 20, 2024, Edison filed a reply. The Court continued the hearing to October 3, 2024.
On September 11, 2024, the Court denied Edison’s ex parte application to relate case numbers 22STCV28302, 23STLC03340, and 23STCV22007.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Edison asks the Court to relate case numbers 22STCV28302, 23STLC03340, and 23STCV22007 or, in the alternative, to reconsider the Court’s June 13, 2024 order.
Plaintiffs ask the Court to deny the motion.
Los Angeles Superior Court local rule 3.3(f)(3) provides:
“In the event that the judge designated under California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(h)(1)(A)(B)(C) to make the decision, does not order related any of the cases set forth in the Notice of Related Cases, any party may file a motion to have the cases related. Department 1 shall hear the motion, if the cases are all pending in the Central District . . . .”
(Los Angeles Superior Court Local Rule 3.3(f)(3); see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.300(h)(1)(D) [“In the event that any of the cases listed in the notice are not ordered related under (A), (B), or (C), any party in any of the cases listed in the notice may file a motion to have the cases related. The motion must be filed with the presiding judge or the judge designated by the presiding judge”].)
DISCUSSION
On June 11, 2024, Edison filed a notice of related case asking the Court to relate case numbers 22STCV28302, 23STLC03340, and 23STCV22007. On June 13, 2024, the Court denied the request. (The Court assumes the omission of case number 23STCV22007 in the June 13, 2024 minute order was inadvertent and the Court intended to deny Edison’s request to relate all three cases.)
The three cases are pending in the Central District of the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Case number 22STCV28302 is an unlimited civil case previously assigned to Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse and now assigned to Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse. Case number 23STLC03340 is a limited civil case assigned to Department 26 of the Spring Street Courthouse. Case number 23STCV22007 is an unlimited civil case assigned to Department 27 of the Spring Street Courthouse.
After Department 31 declined to relate the three cases on June 13, 2024, Los Angeles Superior Court Local Rule 3.3(f)(3) permitted Edison to file a motion in Department 1 to have the cases related. Instead, however, Edison filed a motion in Department 28. The Court denies the motion without prejudice to Edison filing a motion under Local Rule 3.3(f)(3) in Department 1.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES Defendant Southern California Edison Company’s motion to relate case numbers 22STCV28302, 23STLC03340, and 23STCV22007 or, in the alternative, for reconsideration of the Court's June 13, 2024 minute order. The denial is without prejudice to Edison filing a motion in Department 1 under Local Rule 3.3(f)(3).
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.