Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 21STCV06984, Date: 2023-03-23 Tentative Ruling

Please notify Dept. 1’s courtroom staff by email (SMCDept1@lacourt.org) or by telephone (213-633-0601) no later than 8:30 a.m. the day of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion.  If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify the other side that you will not appear at the hearing.  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.  Please keep in mind that appearing at the hearing and simply repeating the arguments set forth in the papers is not a good use of the court’s time or the parties’ time.

 

Case Number: 21STCV06984    Hearing Date: March 23, 2023    Dept: 1

21STCV06984           VICTOR GONZALEZ, et al. vs ADB GLOBAL TRADE LLC, et al.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Relate Cases

TENTATIVE RULING:  The motion is DENIED.

Background

On February 23, 2021, Plaintiffs Victor Gonzalez and Ana Gonzalez filed this action against ADB Global Trade, LLC and numerous other defendants. On November 1, 2022, Plaintiff Ana Gonzalez, individually and as successor in interest to Victor Gonzalez, filed the operative Second Amended Complaint. The SAC alleges the numerous named defendants manufactured, distributed and/or supplied stone products used mostly in homes that contained hazardous materials including toxic amounts of silica and metals. From 1988 to 2019, Plaintiff Victor Gonzalez allegedly installed stone counters and was exposed to the hazardous materials which caused him to develop medical issues, including silicosis, pulmonary fibrosis, requiring extensive medical treatment including organ transplantation. The SAC asserts causes of action for: (1) negligence; (2) strict liability – warning defect; (3) strict liability – design defect; (4) fraudulent concealment; and (5) breach of implied warranties.

On January 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Related Case indicating 21STCV06984 was related to the following cases:

-        22STCV31907 Reyes-Gonzalez v. Aaroha Radiant Marble & Granite Slabs;

-        22STCV37000 Gonzalez-Morin v. Architectural Surfaces, Inc.;

-        22STCV38729 Segura-Meza v. Agoura Hills Marble And Granite, Inc.;

-        22STCV39957 Garcia-Rosas v. Architectural Surfaces, Inc.;

-        23STCV00238 Luna-Reyes v. Architectural Surfaces, Inc.; and

-        23STCV00260 Reyes-Cuevas v. Alpha Tile & Stone, Inc.

On February 8, 2023, Judge Stephanie M. Bowick issued an order finding the cases were not related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300.

Motion

On February 14, 2023, Plaintiffs in all seven cases listed in the Notice of Related Case filed the instant motion seeking to relate the cases.

Opposition

In their eight separately filed oppositions, Defendants M&M Marble & Granite, Inc., Cambria Company LLC, Forte-Stone, LLC, Terrazzo & Marble Supply Co. of Illinois, Arizona Tile, LLC, C&C North America, Inc., Caesarstone USA, Inc. and Dragos Marble, Inc. argue the cases involve different products, different employers, plaintiffs with different job descriptions, different time periods, and different injuries and are not related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300.

Reply

In reply, Plaintiffs contend some of the Defendants misunderstand the effect of relating the cases as their oppositions focus on jury confusion. Plaintiffs also argue that their cases should have their own docket like asbestos cases, and reiterate their arguments that the cases are related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300.

Motion to Relate Cases

Service

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. . . . The motion must be served on each party in every case listed in the Notice of Related Cases, with proof of service attached.” (See also Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(h)(1)(D).)

Defendant C&C North America argues the motion was not served in the Reyes-Gonzalez (22STCV31907) or the Morin-Gonzalez (22STCV37000) cases. (C&C Opp. at 3:6-13.) Defendant does not provide any evidence to support this allegation. The proof of service filed with the motion indicates service in these cases. Plaintiffs also filed and served a Notice of Filing of Motion to Relate Cases in 22STCV37000 and 22STCV31907 on March 13, 2023. Moreover, Defendant C&C North America responded on the merits of the motion. (Tate v. Superior Court (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 925, 930 (“opposition to the motion on its merits is a waiver of any defects or irregularities in the notice of the motion.”).) Given the numerous oppositions filed to Plaintiffs’ motion, it does not appear that any party is prejudiced by the Court’s consideration of the motion on the merits.

The Cases are Not Related

On February 8, 2023, Judge Stephanie M. Bowick issued an order finding the cases were not related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion is properly brought 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).)

The cases involve the same general legal theories based upon negligence, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of warranties, and loss of consortium. Plaintiffs’ motion includes a chart containing the case name and the “major manufacturers and suppliers” in the seven cases. (Mot. at 17.) As the chart demonstrates and argued by Defendants, the cases do not involve the same parties. Each case involves different plaintiffs and there are numerous different defendants named in each case. The chart also includes only 26 defendants. Defendant Dragos Marble notes “[o]f these 26 defendants, only 10 are named in every case.” (Dragos Opp. at 3:13-14.) There are over 60 defendants in 21STCV06984 and over 40 in 22STCV31907. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a)(1).)

The cases do not 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. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a)(2).) Plaintiffs contend all cases involve “male Hispanic immigrant stone fabrication workers who have been diagnosed with silicosis and are being treated for their occupational disease at Olive View-UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles County.” (Mot. at 13:4-14:12.) As argued by Defendants, each case arises out of the individual Plaintiff’s specific exposure to different products, in different locations, over different time periods, under different working conditions.

In arguing the cases will require determination of substantially identical questions of law and fact, Plaintiffs’ motion generally cites similarities in litigation strategy, the filing of demurrers and motions to strike, summary judgment motions, answers with similar affirmative defenses, and pre-trial challenges to Plaintiffs’ eventual experts. (Mot. at 15:4-28.) In reply, Plaintiffs contend the Defendants have raised similar arguments in their demurrers. (Reply at 9:14-22.) However, similar arguments addressed to similarly alleged pleadings are not sufficient to satisfy Rule 3.300. Each case will require the determination of substantially different questions of law and fact related to the products at issue and their composition, the methods, types, amount, and duration of exposure, each Plaintiff’s working conditions, the existence of protective equipment or precautions, defendants’ relative liability, each Plaintiff’s individual injury, medical treatment, causation, and damages. For example, Decedent Victor Gonzalez in 21STCV06984 allegedly worked from 1988 to 2019 “making and installing granite, marble, stone and artificial stone counters at his employer’s facilities and in the homes of their customers,” (21STCV06984 SAC ¶ 73), whereas Plaintiff Juan Rodrigo Gonzalez-Morin in 22STCV37000 alleges he worked from 2013 to 2021 “cutting, fabricating and installing artificial stone and natural stone countertops mostly in home kitchens and bathrooms,” for three different employers, (22STCV37000 Compl. ¶¶ 24-27.)

Plaintiffs also contend the cases will require a substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a)(4).) Plaintiffs argue separate judges have been “ruling on innumerable demurrers and motions to strike, all raising identical or substantially identical issues based on identical or substantially identical arguments.” (Mot. at 16:4-8.) Defendant Caesarstone USA argues “the same can be said of any typical products liability case.” (Caesarstone Opp. at 4:18.) However, similar pretrial motions addressed to similarly alleged pleadings is not sufficient to demonstrate a substantial duplication of judicial resources. Plaintiffs’ contention that “judges will undoubtedly issue conflicting rulings” on pretrial motions, (Reply at 11:10, 14:15-28), is speculative and does not demonstrate good cause to relate these cases. The Court is not persuaded by Plaintiffs’ analogies to asbestos litigation, which are part of a Judicial Council Coordinated Proceeding. Here, Judges Ann I. Jones and David S. Cunningham III declared each of the cases at issue non-complex. As argued by Defendants, there are numerous issues that are specific to each plaintiff, each defendant, and each product that predominate. The cases will not require a substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges.

The Court shall not relate the cases identified by Plaintiff and the motion is DENIED.