Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 19STCV23747, Date: 2024-05-09 Tentative Ruling

If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, please email
the clerk at SMCdept1@lacourt.org (and “cc” all other parties in the same
email) no later than 7:30 am on the day of the hearing, and please notify all
other parties in advance that you will not be appearing at the hearing.  Include the word "SUBMISSION" in
all caps in the subject line and include your name, contact information, the
case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you
submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing
party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motion, and the
Court may decide not to adopt the tentative ruling.

Case Number: 19STCV23747    Hearing Date: May 9, 2024    Dept: 1

19STCV23747           J.G. vs LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Deem Cases Related

TENTATIVE RULING:  Plaintiffs’ Motion to Deem Cases Related is GRANTED.  Department 1 relates 19STCV23747 with 23TRCV02505 and orders 23TRCV02505 reassigned to Department 56 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse for all purposes. All hearings currently set in civil law case 23TRCV02505 are hereby advanced and vacated. Moving party to give notice.

On July 8, 2019, minor Plaintiffs J.G., A.Z., B.W., and J.C., by and through their guardians ad litem, filed this action against the Los Angeles Unified School District and Daniel Ayon. The complaint asserts causes of action for: (1) negligent hiring, supervision, training and retention; (2) sexual harassment in violation of Civil Code §§ 51.9 and 52; (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (4) sexual assault/battery. The complaint alleges the named Plaintiffs attended Amestoy Elementary School and were enrolled in an afterschool program between August 2018 and April 2019. The complaint alleges Defendant Ayon worked at the afterschool program and sexually assaulted Plaintiffs on school grounds during the afterschool program hours.

On November 4, 2019, Judge Holly J. Fujie issued an order finding 19STCV23747 and 19STCV30462 R.C. v. Los Angeles Unified School District, et al, related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300. The complaint in 19STCV30462 alleges Plaintiff R.C. also attended the afterschool program at Amestoy and was sexually assaulted by Defendant Ayon.

On May 5, 2021, Judge Fujie issued an order finding 19STCV23747 and 20STCV01832 A.C. v. Los Angeles Unified School District, et al, related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300. The First Amended Complaint in 20STCV01832 alleges Plaintiff A.C. also attended the afterschool program at Amestoy and was sexually assaulted by Defendant Ayon.

On June 18, 2021, Judge Fujie issued an order on the parties’ stipulation consolidating 19STCV23747, 19STCV30462, and 20STCV01832 for all purposes.

On August 31, 2023, Judge Fujie issued an order finding 19STCV23747 and 23TRCV02505 M.M. v. Daniel Ayon, et al, were not related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300. The complaint in 23TRCV02505 alleges Plaintiff M.M. also attended the afterschool program at Amestoy and was sexually assaulted by Defendant Ayon.

The lead case, 19STCV23747, is currently pending in Department 56 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse with the next hearing set for May 28, 2024 and 23TRCV02505 is currently pending in Department M of the Torrance Courthouse with the next hearing set for June 13, 2024.

Standard

Pursuant to Los Angeles Superior Court Local Rule 3.3(f)(3), “[i]n the event that the judge designated under California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(h)(1)(A)(B)(C) to make the decision, does not order related any of the cases set forth in the Notice of Related Cases, any party may file a motion to have the cases related. Department 1 shall hear the motion, if the cases are all pending in the Central District or are pending in two or more different districts.” (See also Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(h)(1)(D).)

The Court Finds the Cases are Related

As noted above, Judge Fujie issued an order declining to relate 19STCV23747 with 23TRCV02505 on August 31, 2023. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion is properly before Department 1. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(h)(1)(D), LASC Local Rule 3.3(f)(3).)  

Cases are related when they (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. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a).)

Plaintiffs note six of seven plaintiffs with allegations against Defendant Ayon have had their cases related and consolidated. Having been filed after the consolidation order, 23TRCV02505 is the only case not made part of the lead case.

While the cases involve the same or similar claims, they do not involve the same parties as the cases have different plaintiffs. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a)(1).) However, the cases do 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. The cases arise out of allegations of a similar pattern of conduct by Defendant Ayon during the same afterschool program. The cases will require the determination of identical questions of law and fact regarding Defendant Ayon’s conduct, issues surrounding any concurrent criminal proceedings, as well as the knowledge, conduct, and potential liability of the school district. Given the substantial similarities between the cases, they will also require a substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a)(4).) Having a single judicial officer resolve all disputes in cases related to Ayon’s alleged conduct promotes judicial efficiency and guards against inconsistent rulings.

The Court finds the cases are related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a) and the motion is GRANTED.