Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 23STCV23749, Date: 2025-03-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV23749 Hearing Date: March 6, 2025 Dept: 40
23STCV23749
Mecca Morgan v. Alpha Beta Company, dba Ralphs et al.
Thursday,
March 6, 2025
[TENTATIVE]
ORDER CONTINUING THE HEARING ON
The second
amended complaint (“SAC”) filed on May 17, 2024, alleges that on February 28,
2022, Plaintiff was assaulted by Dan Cronin, Defendant’s employee, while
attempting to leave a Ralph’s grocery store and accused of shoplifting.
Plaintiff alleges claims for (1) racial discrimination under the Unruh Civil
Rights Act; (2) battery; (3) negligent infliction of emotional distress; and
(4) violation of Civil Code § 52.1.
As a
preliminary matter, Defendant states that Plaintiff first commenced this action
on March 15, 2022, and later dismissed it on August 31, 2022, without
prejudice. The court’s Register of Actions reflects that Plaintiff filed an
action on March 15, 2022, against The Kroger Company, Kroger, Ralphs, and Dan
Cronin bearing Case No. 22STCV09135 arising from an incident that occurred on
February 28, 2022, at a Ralph’s location at 4760 West Pico Boulevard in Los
Angeles. The matter was assigned to Hon. Mel Red Recana in Department 45.
Plaintiff filed a request for dismissal without prejudice on August 31, 2022.
Plaintiff
then filed this action on September 29, 2023, against Alpha Beta Company dba
Ralphs and Dan Cronin, arising from the same incident that occurred at the same
location as alleged in 22STCV09135. This matter was initially assigned to Hon.
Michelle Kim in Department 31. On March
15, 2024, the case was reassigned to Department 40 at the Stanley Mosk
Courthouse as it was not a personal injury matter.
A
pending civil case is related to another pending civil case, or to a civil case
that was dismissed with or without prejudice, or to a civil case that was
disposed of by judgment, if the cases: “(1) Involve the same parties and are
based on the same or similar claims; (2) Arise from the same or substantially
identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the
same or substantially identical questions of law or fact; (3) Involve claims
against, title to, possession of, or damages to the same property; or (4) Are
likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication of judicial
resources if heard by different judges.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.300.)
Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered to file and
serve a Notice of Related Cases in Department 45 and Department 40 for determination
of whether this case should be related to the first-filed action in Department
45. Plaintiff shall comply with Cal Rules of Court, Rule 3.300.
The
hearing on this demurrer is continued to