Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: BC545264, Date: 2024-02-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC545264    Hearing Date: February 28, 2024    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

Plaintiffs Wade Robson (“Robson”) and James Safechuck (“Safechuck”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) each move to consolidate their respective cases, Robson v. Doe 1 (Super. Ct. L.A. County, 2013, No. BC508502) (hereafter Robson v. Doe) and Safechuck v. Doe 1 (Super. Ct. L.A. County, 2014, No. BC545264) (hereafter Safechuck v. Doe) for all purposes. 

Defendants MJJ Productions, Inc. and MJJ Ventures, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) have filed a response, indicating Defendants do not oppose and join in Plaintiffs’ request to consolidate the two cases.  

ANALYSIS

Procedural Requirements

            Per Local Rule 3.3, “Cases may not be consolidated unless they are in the same department.  A motion to consolidate two or more cases may be noticed and heard after the cases, initially filed in different departments, have been related into a single department, or if the cases were already assigned to that department.”  (Super. Ct. L.A. County, Local Rules, rule 3.3(g)(1).)  Once the Court relates the cases, the Court may consolidate the actions and order a joint trial on matters that “involve[e] a common question of law or fact.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a).)

            Robson and Safechuck are currently related and pending before Department 207.  Therefore, there are no procedural hurdles to consolidation.

            Substantive Requirements

Code of Civil Procedure section 1048, subdivision (a) provides:

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.

            Robson filed suit on May 10, 2013[1].  Robson’s operative fourth amended complaint (“4AC”) alleges six causes of action against Defendants for (1) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (2) negligence; (3) negligent supervision; (4) negligent retention/hiring; (5) negligent failure to warn, train or educate; and (6) breach of fiduciary duty.  (See Ex. 1 to Safechuck’s Motion [Robson’s 4AC].)

            Safechuck filed suit on May 9, 2014.  Safechuck’s second amended complaint (“2AC”) alleges the same six causes of action against the same defendants.  (See Ex. 2 to Robson’s Motion [Safechuck’s 2AC].)  Both cases arise from allegations that the now-deceased entertainer, Michael Jackson (“Jackson”), with the help and facilitation of Defendants, sexually abused Plaintiffs when they were minors.  Safechuck alleges his abuse occurred from 1988 to 1992.  (2AC at ¶ 36.)  Robson alleges his abuse began in 1990 and lasted approximately seven years.  (4AC at ¶ 15.)  

            Plaintiffs contend that because both cases allege sexual abuse committed by the same person, and facilitated by the same Defendants, during overlapping time frames, both cases will involve many of the same witnesses and discovery involving many of the same employees for Defendants.  Moreover, evidence of other instances of sexual abuse Jackson committed during the same overlapping time frames will be relevant to both cases.

            As a further indication of the commonalities between the cases, both cases were appealed twice – the first time concerning a statute of limitations issue and the second time primarily concerning the issue of whether Defendants owed a duty to warn or protect Plaintiffs.  Both times the Court of Appeal consolidated both cases for purposes of the appeals, due to the common questions of law and fact involved.  (See Safechuck v. MJJ Productions, Inc. (2020) 43 Cal.App.5th 1094, 1097 [first appeal] and Safechuck v. MJJ Productions, Inc. (2020) 94 Cal.App.5th 675, 680-681 [second appeal].)

            As such, the Court finds that consolidation is warranted, as the cases present common issues of fact and law regarding the same underlying conduct during overlapping time periods, involving the same defendants and many of the same witnesses. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ unopposed motions to consolidate Robson v. Doe 1 (Super. Ct. L.A. County, 2013, No. BC508502) and Safechuck v. Doe 1 (Super. Ct. L.A. County, 2014, No. BC545264). 

The Court further orders that the cases are consolidated for all purposes and Robson v. Doe 1 (Super. Ct. L.A. County, 2013, No. BC508502) is designated as the lead case per California Rules of Court, rule 3.350(b).  The Court further orders that all proceedings and hearing dates in Safechuck v. Doe 1 (Super. Ct. L.A. County, 2014, No. BC545264) are vacated.

            Plaintiffs shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.

DATED:  February 28, 2024                                                  ___________________________

                                                                                          Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court