Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 20STCV22476, Date: 2023-09-14 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV22476 Hearing Date: December 19, 2023 Dept: A
20
[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
CONSOLIDATE FILED BY LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
The complaint alleges that Plaintiff
attended Watts Learning Center Charter Middle School operated by Los Angeles
Unified School District (“LAUSD”). Plaintiff’s mother, Veronica Hamid, alleges
that she requested that Plaintiff be excused from physical activities to
accommodate Plaintiff’s medical condition (“brittle bone disease”). Defendants allegedly
failed to accommodate Plaintiff and required Plaintiff to run during a physical
education class, where Plaintiff fell and suffered multiple fractures.
Plaintiff alleges eight causes of action for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and negligence against
Defendants, Watts Learning Center Foundation, Inc. (“Watts”), and LAUSD.
LAUSD filed a cross complaint on July 1,
2022, against Watts and Alliance of Schools for Cooperative Insurance Programs
(“Alliance”) for indemnity and breach of contract arising from cross-defendant
’s alleged failure to defend LAUSD in the M.R. action. On October 21, 2022, the Hon. William A. Crowfoot
struck the cross-complaint because it was impermissibly filed without leave of
court. (Min.
Ord. 10/21/22.)
On May 16, 2023, this Court granted LAUSD’s
motion to file a cross-complaint but only against Watts for indemnity and
contribution. (Min.
Ord. 5/16/23.)
On May 26, 2023, LAUSD filed a separate
action against Watts and Alliance for breach of contract and declaratory
relief (the “Coverage Action”) for their alleged failure to defend and
indemnify LAUSD in the M.R. action (“the Personal Injury Action.”) The Court
related both matters. (Min.
Ord. 6/16/23.)
II.
ARGUMENTS
LAUSD moves to consolidate
the Personal Injury Action with the Coverage Action, Case No. 23CMCV00774. The
Court has related these matters since they both arise from the same events. LAUSD
asserts that consolidation will promote judicial efficiency.
Defendant Watts opposes the motion
because the Court has already denied LAUSD’s request to try its cross-claims at
the same time as the personal injury claims. Watts would suffer prejudice if a
jury considered the personal injury claims at the same time as it determines
who should pay for those damages. Watts will not be able to conduct discovery
or file a dispositive motion since the Coverage Action was recently filed.
Plaintiff opposes the motion on grounds
judicial efficiency will not be promoted and will almost certainly confuse the
jury. Plaintiff has litigated the personal injury action for three-and-a-half
years, and consolidation will result in delaying trial. The Coverage Action
does not arise from the same events resulting in Plaintiff’s injuries.
In reply, LAUSD argues that Watts is
estopped from arguing that LAUSD may not bring its insurance claims in the same
tort action. This Court rejected that argument. Watts is not LAUSD’s insurer
and has no standing to make this argument.
III.
LEGAL STANDARDS
The decision to consolidate
is a matter for the court’s discretion. (Muller v. Robinson
(1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 511, 515.) Consolidation is appropriate
where common questions of law or fact are pending and to avoid unnecessary
costs or delay. (Code
Civ. Proc., § 1048 subd. (a).) The court has
discretion to order “a consolidation for purposes of trial only, where the two
actions remain otherwise separate; and a complete consolidation or
consolidation for all purposes, where the two actions are merged into a single
proceeding under one case number and result in only one verdict or set of
findings and one judgment.”(Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp.,
Ltd. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1127, 1147.)
Consolidation is appropriate whenever it can be done “without prejudice to a
substantial right." (Jud Whitehead Heater Co. v.
Obler (1952) 111 Cal.App.2d 861, 867.)
IV.
DISCUSSION
Watts argues again as it did in opposing
LAUSD’s motion to file a cross-complaint that the cross-complaint is precluded
as a matter of law because LAUSD cannot assert its cross-claims against its
insurer in the same action involving Plaintiff’s personal injuries. Watts again
cites Smith
v. Interinsurance Exchange (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 301, which states
that a plaintiff may not simultaneously file a personal injury action
against an insured tortfeasor and the tortfeasor’s insurer for insurance bad
faith. (Smith
at 304.)
LAUSD does not assert negligence claims in
its cross-complaint against an insured; rather, LAUSD alleges it is an
additional insured under the policy provided by Alliance. Nor has LAUSD
asserted an insurance bad faith claim against Alliance. The rule in Smith
would preclude Plaintiff from simultaneously suing LAUSD and Watts (the insured
tortfeasors) and Alliance (the alleged insurer) for insurance bad faith.
Consolidation of the Coverage Action with
the Personal Injury Action, however, is not appropriate under the
circumstances. The Coverage Action involves LAUSD’S claims arising from the
interpretation of the Charter Petition between LAUSD and Watts, Watts’ alleged
duty to provide commercial general liability insurance, and the duties
attendant to an insurance policy ultimately provided by Alliance. (LAUSD
FAXC 11/13/23.) These are issues of contract and contract interpretation,
and duties arising therefrom, which do not involve LAUSD’s and Watts’ duty owed
to the Plaintiff in allegedly failing to accommodate Plaintiff’s medical
condition. The cases do not involve common questions of law and fact. The
Coverage Action broadens the legal and factual issues involved and will not
promote judicial efficiency.
Consolidation will likely result in
prejudice to Plaintiff because the Coverage Action involves a new party
(Alliance), and that action was recently commenced in May 2023. The Personal
Injury Action was filed over three years ago on June 12, 2020. Trial was
originally set for October 18, 2023, but continued pursuant to the parties’
stipulation to January 31, 2024. (Min.
Ord. 9/14/23.) Consolidation will likely result in further delay.
V.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, LAUSD’s Motion to
Consolidate is DENIED.