Judge: Mark C. Kim, Case: BC624620, Date: 2023-03-09 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: BC624620 Hearing Date: March 9, 2023 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.5th
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 3rd,
4th, and 5th 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. Notably, Palmore is the
Glacial Gardens employee who allegedly told Paramount there was no problem with
Vincent.
3. Motion
to Consolidate
Plaintiff moves to consolidate the
two above-detailed actions, correctly noting that they arise from the same facts
and circumstances and trial of the claims will involve overlapping testimony
and evidence. Notably, trying the cases separately
carries the very real risk that there will be inconsistent verdicts.
Glacial Gardens joins in the motion,
but specifically notes that it does not agree with all of the contentions
Plaintiff makes in the moving papers.
Palmore opposes the motion.
Palmore’s opposition is made primarily on two grounds. First, she has concerns that the parties to
the consolidated cases will not agree to permit her to conduct her own discovery,
as they have already conducted their own discovery. Second, she has concerns that she will not have
time to have a pleading challenge and any potential summary judgment motion
heard after she completes all discovery in the case in light of the potentially
early trial date. She notes that she
offered to consolidate the cases for trial only with an April 2024 trial date,
but Plaintiff refused.
Palmore is a new defendant in this
case, and she is entitled to conduct discovery.
While it is true that Glacial Gardens has at all times been represented,
and that some of Glacial Gardens’ interests overlap with Palmore’s interests,
she still has the right to her own representation and lines of inquiry in
discovery. She also has the right to a
hearing on her demurrer, which is currently scheduled for 8/10/23, and to have
any summary judgment motion heard after she has sufficient time to conduct her
own discovery.
The Court finds the possibility of
inconsistent rulings and the redundancy in the event the cases are not
consolidated outweighs any of Palmore’s concerns, all of which can be addressed
through case management and professional courtesy between all of the attorneys
involved. The motion to consolidate is
therefore granted.
The hearing on the 8/10/23 demurrer
is advanced to today’s date and continued to Thursday, 4/20/23 at 8:30 a.m. in Department
S27. All attorneys in the consolidated
cases are ordered to work together to create a discovery plan. Palmore must be provided with copies of all discovery
completed to date. Palmore is permitted
to conduct discovery, but is asked to ensure the discovery is not redundant with
that already completed.
4. Motion
for Summary Judgment
There is a summary judgment motion
scheduled for hearing today in this case.
The Court, however, has no papers in support of or in opposition to the
motion. The motion is therefore taken
off calendar.
5. Case
Management Conference
Counsel are reminded that there is
a CMC on calendar today concurrently with the hearing on the above motion to
consolidate. The Court asks Counsel to
make arrangements to appear remotely at the CMC and hearing on the motion. The Court will discuss a trial date for the consolidated
cases with Counsel at the time of the hearing.
The Court notes that there is a CMC
on calendar in 22STCV31771 on 3/14/23. That
hearing date is vacated in light of the order consolidating the cases. The Court also notes that there is a hearing
on a motion to compel further responses in 22STCV31771 on 3/14/23. That hearing date will remain on calendar,
but will be moved to the lead case of BC624620.
All future papers must be filed in BC624620 and all future hearings must
be scheduled in BC624620.