Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 21STCV06984, Date: 2023-11-09 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: 21STCV06984 Hearing Date: November 9, 2023 Dept: 1
21STCV06984 VICTOR
GONZALEZ, et al. vs ADB GLOBAL TRADE LLC
Plaintiff’s Motion to Relate Cases
TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiffs’ Motion to Relate Cases
is DENIED with prejudice. The cases shall remain as assigned.
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, Plaintiffs
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.
On February 14, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a motion to
relate, which Department 1 denied on March 23, 2023.
On April 12, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of
Submission of Petition for Coordination of Cases. On June 9, 2023, the court
denied Plaintiff’s petition for coordination of cases 21STCV06984, 22STCV31907,
22STCV37000, 22STCV38729, 22STCV39957, 23STCV00238, 23STCV00260, 23STCV01424,
23STCV01612, 23STCV06368, 23STCV06568, 30-2023-01316441-CU-TT-CXC, and
CGC-23-605643.
On September 27, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a new Notice
of Related Case involving the same prior seven cases as well as eleven
additional cases:
-
21STCV06984
Gonzalez v. ADB Global Trading, et al;
-
22STCV31907 Reyes-Gonzalez v.
Aaroha Radiant Marble & Granite Slabs, et al;
-
22STCV37000 Gonzalez-Morin v.
Architectural Surfaces, et al;
-
22STCV38729 Segura-Meza v. Agoura
Hills Marble and Granite, et al;
-
22STCV39957 Garcia-Rosas v.
Architectural Surfaces, et al;
-
23STCV00238 Luna-Reyes v.
Architectural Surfaces, et al;
-
23STCV00260 Reyes-Cuevas v. Alpha
Tile & Stone, et al;
-
23STCV01424 Bustos-Mondragon
v. Luigi, et al;
-
23STCV01612 Gomez-Rivera
v ADB Global Trade, et al;
-
23STCV06368 Gallegos-Botello
v. Architectural Surfaces, et al;
-
23STCV06384 Moz-Murcia
v. Architectural Surfaces, et al;
-
23STCV06568 Alvarado-Ortiz
v. Architectural Surfaces, et al;
-
23STCV08440 Soto-Rodriguez
v. AKG Trading, et al;
-
23STCV08523 Rivas-Williams v. A & A Granite, et al;
-
23STCV08596 Melendez-Murillo
v AKG Trading USA, et al;
-
23STCV11727 Montoya-Bautista
v Architectural Surfaces, et al;
-
23STCV12007 Maciel
v Alpha Tile and Stone, et al; and
-
23STCV11602 Solano-Claustro
v. ADB Global Trade, et al.
On September 28, 2023, Judge Upinder S. Kalra issued
an order on the new Notice stating: “The Court has reviewed the actual March
23, 2023, order issued by the Supervising Judge of the Civil Division, the
Honorable Michelle Williams Court. The Notice of Related Case was DENIED.
Contrary to the notice prepared by Plaintiff's counsel and attached to the
current notice as Exhibit D, there is nothing on the face of the order that the
denial was without prejudice. Even if the Notice was denied without prejudice,
such further review, pursuant to Rule of Court 3.300((h)(1)(D) should be
directed to the presiding judge designated by the presiding judge, the Hon.
Michelle Williams Court. Plaintiff's Notice of Related Case filed on September
27, 2023, is Denied.”
The
Cases are Not Related
On September 28, 2023, Judge Kalra 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 Court’s March 23, 2023 order applies equally here and
the Court finds no basis to deviate from its prior ruling. As argued by the
Defendants in several of their oppositions, there have been no substantive
changes since the Court’s prior order. Plaintiffs’ counsel’s filing of new
complaints, on behalf of new Plaintiffs against varying Defendants, does not
render the cases related. Plaintiffs make many of the same arguments previously
rejected by this Court in its March 23,
2023 order.
Plaintiffs contend “one
of the strongest reasons for deeming the actions related is that they all arise
from the same or substantially identical transactions, happenings or events.”
(Mot. at 6:4-5.) Plaintiffs then list eight reasons, (Mot. at 6:6-8; Reply at 5:27-6:18),
each of which were raised in Plaintiffs’ prior motion and were present in the seven
cases this Court previously declined to relate. Plaintiffs understandably focus
upon the similarities in their allegations. However, the transactions,
incidents, or events from which the cases arise are not the same or
substantially identical. As stated in the Court’s March 23, 2023 order, 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. Therefore, the cases are not related under California Rules
of Court, rule 3.300(a)(2).
Plaintiffs also enumerate nine reasons the cases will
require determination of substantially identical questions of law and fact,
generally citing 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 7:1-26; Reply at 6:20-7:11.) Each of these reasons were also raised in
Plaintiffs’ prior motion. As this Court previously ruled, similar general 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.
Plaintiffs contend the cases have entailed a substantial
duplication of labor by the judges of this court, citing demurrers, motions to
strike, and motions to quash, contend judges have issued different rulings on
the same issues, without citing any such rulings, and argue “in the near future
as many silicosis cases will be filed in the Stanley Mosk Courthouse as there
are civil judges in that courthouse,” such that it is more efficient for a
single judge to administer the cases. (Mot. at 8:1-9: Reply at 7:12-9:25,
11:1-22.) As argued by Defendants, Plaintiffs’ arguments apply to most cases
involving similar legal theories or cases where the same foreign Defendant is
sued in a given jurisdiction. Each case will be decided based upon the
application of the law to the facts specific to each plaintiff, each defendant,
and each product at issue. The individual issues predominate and the cases are
not likely to result in a substantial duplication of judicial resources within
the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a)(4).
Finally, Plaintiffs restate their
argument that “stone countertop fabricator silicosis cases” should have their
own docket similar to asbestos cases. (Reply at 2:15-4:13.) As stated in this
Court’s prior order, “[t]he Court is not persuaded by
Plaintiffs’ analogies to asbestos litigation, which are part of a Judicial
Council Coordinated Proceeding.” As noted above, the coordination judge denied
Plaintiffs’ coordination petition related to a large number of these cases
since this Court’s March 23, 2023 order.
The Court shall not relate the cases identified by
Plaintiffs and the motion is DENIED with prejudice.