Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 23STCV08570, Date: 2023-11-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV08570    Hearing Date: January 19, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: January 19, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Consolidate

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Tracy Hark, Al Waller and Patrome Collins

Responding Party: Defendants Pacific Maritime Association and SSA Terminals, LLC

T/R:      PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE IS DENIED.

PLAINTIFFS TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers, oppositions, and reply.

“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.”  (CCP § 1048(a).)

Plaintiffs move to consolidate (1) Hark et al. v. Pacific Maritime Association et al., LASC Case No. 23STCV08570; and (2) Collins v. Pacific Maritime Association et al., LASC Case No. 23STCV14540.

Plaintiffs argue the cases should be consolidated because they involve common questions of law and fact. Plaintiffs assert both actions involve incidents of racial harassment by Defendant Lomeli against Plaintiffs while they were employed by Defendants and include the same causes of action and parties. Plaintiffs contend that the common issue in both cases is whether Defendants continued to employ Lomeli despite notice of his alleged acts of racial harassment and/or discrimination.

In opposition, Defendants assert the actions do not involve common facts. Defendants emphasize that each Plaintiff’s claims arise from distinct events and that each Plaintiff had distinct employers. Defendants argue that consolidation would confuse the jury and would not result in efficiencies of discovery or at trial.

The Court declines to consolidate the actions. The actions involve distinct incidents and the parties have distinct employment relationships. They do not arise from the same transaction or series of events.

Plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate is DENIED.