Judge: Mark C. Kim, Case: BC624620, Date: 2022-12-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC624620    Hearing Date: December 22, 2022    Dept: S27

1.     BC624620

Plaintiff, Anna G., as GAL for Annie G., filed BC624620 against Defendants, Paramount Iceland Skating Rink, Glacial Garden Skating Arenas, LLC and Ron White for alleged criminal sexual abuse by Plaintiff’s former figure skating coach, Donald Vincent.  Plaintiff filed BC624620 on 6/21/16. 

Plaintiff alleges she suffered sexual abuse starting at the age of seven, and the abuse occurred at the Paramount Iceland Skating Rink.  Plaintiff alleges Vincent, prior to working at Paramount, worked at Glacial Garden, which was owned by White. 

Plaintiff alleges Glacial Garden fired Vincent when a staff member caught him in a dark locked room with a minor skater, a small boy, hiding under a bench with Vincent sitting over him.  The staff member had witnessed other boundary violating behaviors by Vincent.  After Glacial Garden fired Vincent, he applied with Paramount; Paramount vetted Vincent before hiring, and as part of the vetting, called Glacial Gardens and asked if there was any problem with Vincent, and was told by Glacial Garden’s employee that there was not a problem with him. 

Procedurally, on 11/19/18, the trial court, Honorable Michael P. Vicencia presiding, sustained Defendants’ demurrer to the TAC without leave to amend.  On 9/17/20, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision in part and ordered the trial court to sustain the demurrer with leave to amend as to negligent and intentional misrepresentation (as to Glacial Garden), and to sustain the demurrer without leave to amend as to all other causes of action (and as to all causes of action as to White).  Plaintiff petitioned the Supreme Court for review, but the Supreme Court ultimately deemed the issue moot in light of its ruling on Brown v. Taekwondo (2021) 11 Cal.5^th 204.  On 7/29/21, Plaintiff filed her operative Fourth Amended Complaint.  On 1/25/22, the Court sustained a demurrer to the 4AC in part, without leave to amend, and ordered Defendants to answer the remaining claims in the 4AC (the 3^rd, 4^th, and 5^th causes of action). 

2.     22STCV31771

Plaintiff, Araceli Gonzalez Herrera filed 22STCV31771 against Defendant, Jacqueline Palmore on 9/27/22.  In 22STCV31771, Herrera alleges Palmore failed to report Vincent’s behavior, and her failure to report the behavior contributed to Plaintiff’s damages, which are the same as those detailed in BC624620. 

3.     Consolidation

a.     Procedural History

On 10/10/22, the Court heard Plaintiff’s ex parte application to deem the two cases related, consolidate them for all purpose, and continue trial.  The Court granted the motion to continue trial, but denied the motion to deem cases related or consolidated. 

On 10/17/22, Glacial Garden filed a Notice of Related Cases.  The Court deemed the cases related the same day. 

On 11/03/22, the Court held a Case Management Conference.  The Court’s order states, in pertinent part, “Hearing on Motion to Consolidate is scheduled for 12/22/22 at 8:30 a.m. in Department S27…”

On 12/07/22, Plaintiff filed a document entitled “Plaintiff’s Position re: Consolidation.”  On 12/09/22, Palmores filed an opposition to any purported motion to consolidate, as well as a declaration in support of her position. 

b.     Analysis

As Palmores correctly notes, there is no actual motion to consolidate on calendar today.  While the Court specially set and scheduled the hearing on the motion, there is nothing in the court file to suggest the Court was not requiring Plaintiff to timely file and serve a notice of motion and all accompanying papers per CCP §1005 if she wished to pursue any request for relief. 

Plaintiff’s “position re: consolidation” was not filed at least sixteen days prior to the hearing date, as required by §1005.  Additionally, the document cannot be construed as a motion, as it lacks a notice of motion and all required information that must be found therein, as required by CRC 3.1110.  Her “position” also fails to comply with Rule 3.1112(a), which requires a notice of hearing on the motion, the motion itself, and a memorandum in support of the motion.  Notably, Rule 3.1113 details the requirements of the supporting memorandum, which includes a statement of facts, statement of the law, evidence and arguments relied on, and a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited.”  Plaintiff’s “position” does none of this.  Finally, Plaintiff’s “position” includes five exhibits, none of which are authenticated. 

Because there is no proper motion for consolidation on calendar for consideration, any request to consolidate is denied. 

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice. 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at gdcdepts27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If any party does not submit on the tentative, the party should make arrangements to appear remotely at the hearing on this matter.