Judge Michelle Williams Court, Case Number: 21STCV19791, Date: 2024-05-09 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 21STCV19791, Date: 2024-05-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV19791 Hearing Date: May 9, 2024 Dept: 1

21STCV19791 SEDIGHEH HAJIZADEH vs MAGIC MOUNTAIN, LLC

Defendant, Magic Mountain, LLC’s Motion to Coordinate Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles Case No. 21STCV19791 and Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara Case Nos. 24CV433621 and 21CV376599 and to Transfer Superior Court Of California, County of Santa Clara Case Nos. 24CV433621 and 21CV376599 to Los Angeles County

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is DENIED. Counsel for Plaintiff to give notice.

Request for Judicial Notice

Defendant and Plaintiff request the Court take judicial notice of various court documents filed in the relevant cases. These requests are GRANTED. (Evid. Code § 452(d).)

Motion to Coordinate Non-Complex Cases

Standard

Los Angeles Superior Court Local Rule 3.3(h) provides: “[a] civil case which is not complex as defined by Standard 3.10 of the Standards of Judicial Administration may be transferred to the court from a superior court in another county, if it involves a common question of fact or law within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 403. The coordination motion shall be made in compliance with the procedures established by California Rules of Court, rule 3.500. Coordination motions seeking to transfer a case or cases to the Central District shall be filed and heard in Department 1. Coordination motions seeking to transfer a case or cases to a district other than the Central District shall be heard by the Supervising Judge in that district.”

Coordination motions are governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 403, which states, in relevant part:

A judge may, on motion, transfer an action or actions from another court to that judge's court for coordination with an action involving a common question of fact or law within the meaning of Section 404. The motion shall be supported by a declaration stating facts showing that the actions meet the standards specified in Section 404.1, are not complex as defined by the Judicial Council and that the moving party has made a good faith effort to obtain agreement to the transfer from all parties to each action. Notice of the motion shall be served on all parties to each action and on each court in which an action is pending. Any party to that action may file papers opposing the motion within the time permitted by rule of the Judicial Council. The court to which a case is transferred may order the cases consolidated for trial pursuant to Section 1048 without any further motion or hearing.

(Code Civ. Proc. § 403.)

California Rules of Court, rule 3.500(c) requires that the motion “must be supported by a declaration stating facts showing that: (1) The actions are not complex; (2) The moving party has made a good-faith effort to obtain agreement to the transfer and consolidation from all parties to the actions; and (3) The moving party has notified all parties of their obligation to disclose to the court any information they may have concerning any other motions requesting transfer of any case that would be affected by the granting of the motion before the court.”

To grant the motion, California Rules of Court, rule 3.500(d) requires the Court to “specify the reasons supporting a finding that the transfer will promote the ends of justice, with reference to the following standards:

(1) The actions are not complex;

(2) Whether the common question of fact or law is predominating and significant to the litigation;

(3) The convenience of the parties, witnesses, and counsel;

(4) The relative development of the actions and the work product of counsel;

(5) The efficient utilization of judicial facilities and staff resources;

(6) The calendar of the courts;

(7) The disadvantages of duplicative and inconsistent rulings, orders, or judgments; and

(8) The likelihood of settlement of the actions without further litigation should coordination be denied.”

(See also Code Civ. Proc. § 404.1.)

Procedural Requirements

The motion is supported by the declaration of Defendant’s counsel, Sanaz Cherazaie, which states the cases are not complex, (Cherazaie Decl. ¶ 18), and Defendant attempted to obtain an agreement for the transfer, (Id. ¶ 19.) However, Defendant’s counsel failed to state facts showing “[t]he moving party has notified all parties of their obligation to disclose to the court any information they may have concerning any other motions requesting transfer of any case that would be affected by the granting of the motion before the court” as required. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.500(c)(3).) However, Plaintiff has opposed the motion and therefore the Court appears to have all relevant information related to the issue of coordination.

In opposition, Plaintiff contends the court cannot transfer 21CV376599 because it has been dismissed. (Opp. at 11:23-12:14.) Plaintiff contends Code of Civil Procedure section 403 only authorizes the transfer of “an action” and Code of Civil Procedure section 30 defines a civil action as “[a] civil action is prosecuted by one party against another for the declaration, enforcement or protection of a right, or the redress or prevention of a wrong.” The Court finds this argument unpersuasive. Plaintiff does not cite any authority supporting the proposition that a case is no longer an “action” after its dismissal.

The Actions Are Not Complex

The Court finds the actions are not complex within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.400. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.500(d)(1).) The three cases will not require “exceptional judicial management to avoid placing unnecessary burdens on the court or the litigants and to expedite the case, keep costs reasonable, and promote effective decision making by the court, the parties, and counsel,” (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.400(a)), as they are not likely to require numerous pretrial motions raising difficult or novel legal issues, do not involve a large number of witnesses, documentary evidence, or separately represented parties, and are not likely to require substantial postjudgment judicial supervision. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.400(b).) The Los Angeles action is a personal injury case without any complex features. The complaint in the first Santa Clara action, 21CV376599, raises the same causes of action as the Los Angeles action and has been dismissed. The second Santa Clara action, 24CV433621, merely seeks declaratory relief as a collateral attack on a judgment.

Predominating and Significant Common Questions of Law or Fact

The parties disagree as to whether the three actions involve predominating and significant common questions of law or fact. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.500(d)(2).) Defendant contends “[e]ach action involves the exact same parties. Each action involves the issue of whether Plaintiff’s dismissal of her Complaint, with prejudice, amounted to res judicata, collateral estoppel, or otherwise barred Plaintiff from litigating her personal injury case against Magic Mountain, LLC in a second forum. Each action involves the defenses of res judicata and collateral estoppel, and hence, involves the determination of the same defenses, arising out of a same or similar factual background.” (Mot. at 13:14-19.) Defendant also contends the cases “share the issue of Plaintiff’s dismissal which is the nexus to all the actions.” (Reply at 6:24-25.) Plaintiff contends the cases do not share common questions of law or fact. (Opp. at 13:25-14:2.)

The Court finds the Los Angeles Superior Court action does not share predominating and significant common questions of law or fact as the two Santa Clara actions. The Los Angeles action is a personal injury action, which seeks to adjudicate Defendant’s liability for Plaintiff’s injuries. The initial Santa Clara action, 21CV376599, has been reduced to judgment with the only pending issue whether Plaintiff is entitled to change the voluntary dismissal from one with prejudice to one without. (Def. RJN Ex. G at 20 (“For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant Plaintiff’s motion and vacate the dismissal with prejudice. The Court may then enter a new order dismissing the case without prejudice.”).) Thus, Plaintiff has no intention of continuing to litigate the personal injury action in Santa Clara. In the second Santa Clara action, 24CV433621, Plaintiff seeks to collaterally attack the dismissal entered in 21CV376599 as void through an action for declaratory relief. (Def. RJN Ex. F.) Thus, the merits of Plaintiff’s personal injury claims will not be at issue in either Santa Clara case. Defendant’s asserted res judicata defenses in the Los Angeles case, based upon the dismissal in 21CV376599, are not a predominating common issue of fact or law with the other cases. Rather, it is a potential legal result based upon the status of the judgment entered in the first action.

Convenience of Parties, Witnesses, and Counsel

Defendant contends all parties are residents of Los Angeles County and are represented by Los Angeles County law firms. (Cherazaie Decl. ¶ 17.) Defendant’s counsel also states Defendant is “unaware of any witnesses that may reside in Santa Clara County and believes that no potential witnesses reside in Santa Clara County.” (Ibid.) Here, it is only the convenience of counsel that would be served by the transfer. The remaining issues in both Santa Clara actions are purely legal, and are not likely to require significant testimony.

Development of Actions, Work Product, Use of Judicial Facilities and Staff Resources, and Apparent Court Calendars

The relative development of the actions and the work product of counsel, (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(d)(4)), the efficient utilization of judicial facilities and staff resources, (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(d)(5)), and the apparent court calendars, (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(d)(6)), also weigh against a transfer and consolidation.

The initial Santa Clara case has been reduced to judgment and the Los Angeles action was filed on May 26, 2021 with trial currently set for June 7, 2024. The second Santa Clara action, which solely seeks declaratory relief on a limited legal issue, was filed on March 21, 2024. Transfer of a largely concluded action, such as 21CV376599, is a waste of staff and judicial resources. Direct litigation of issues related to the entry of a Santa Clara judgment are more appropriately determined in Santa Clara. Because Defendant’s pending motion and defense in the Los Angeles action is based upon the outcome of Plaintiff’s efforts to alter the judgment of dismissal entered in 21CV376599, a stay or continuance of the Los Angeles action is favorable to coordination. The merits of the underlying litigation are only at issue in one of the cases here.

Inconsistent and Duplicative Rulings

The Court also considers “[t]he disadvantages of duplicative and inconsistent rulings, orders, or judgments.” (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.500(d)(7).) There appears to be no risk of duplicative or inconsistent rulings on the underlying merits of the litigation and the any potential risk of such rulings arising from Defendant’s assertions of the res judicata defenses in the Los Angeles case is more efficiently resolved by a stay or continuance to allow the Santa Clara court to address the issues raised regarding its judgment in 21CV376599.

Likelihood of Settlement

California Rules of Court, rule 3.500(d)(8) requires the Court to consider “[t]he likelihood of settlement of the actions without further litigation should coordination be denied.” Defendant does not address the likelihood of settlement in its motion or reply. The Court finds denial of coordination here is not likely to affect the likelihood of settlement considering the narrow remaining issues in the Santa Clara litigation.

The Court Declines to Coordinate the Actions

On balance, the Court finds the relevant factors demonstrate the ends of justice will not be promoted by transfer and consolidation of the two Santa Clara actions in Los Angeles County.

Accordingly, the Court declines to coordinate Santa Clara cases 21CV376599 and 24CV433621 with Los Angeles Superior Court case 21STCV19791.