Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 21STCV33424, Date: 2024-03-06 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: 21STCV33424    Hearing Date: March 6, 2024    Dept: 1

21STCV33424           ANTONIO MARTINS vs HOWARD LONG, et al.

Plaintiff Antonio Martins’ Motion to Relate Cases

TENTATIVE RULING:   Plaintiff Antonio Martin’s Motion to Relate Cases is DENIED. Counsel for Defendants Howard Long and Long Odyssey, Inc. to give notice.

Background of 21STCV33424 Martins v. Long

On September 10, 2021, Plaintiff Antonio Martins filed 21STCV33424 against Howard Long and Long Odyssey, Inc. asserting claims for motor vehicle negligence and negligence per se. The complaint alleges Defendant Howard Long caused an automobile collision on September 30, 2019 near Wilshire and Rodeo Drive that resulted in Plaintiff’s injury. Plaintiff alleges Howard Long was acting within the course and scope of his employment for Defendant Long Odyssey, Inc. when the collision occurred.

On January 12, 2022, Defendant Howard Long filed an answer. Defendant Long Odyssey, Inc. filed an answer on February 3, 2022.

On April 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Related Case involving 21STCV33424 and 22STCV13942 Martins v. Lee. Commissioner Paul Bruguera issued an order on June 2, 2022 denying the Notice on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to file the Notice in 22STCV13942 and noting the cases involved separate accidents.

On June 23, 2022, Plaintiff submitted a new Notice of Related Case. On July 12, 2022, the court served a Notice of Rejection of Electronic Filing dated June 23, 2022, which stated the Notice “was returned based on the following reason(s): Other - Denied without prejudice to filing of noticed motion.”

On August 29, 2023, Plaintiff submitted a third Notice of Related Case. On September 7, 2023, the court served a Notice of Rejection of Electronic Filing dated August 29, 2023, which again stated the Notice “was returned based on the following reason(s): Other - Denied without prejudice to filing of noticed motion.”

On October 18, 2023, non-party Gibran Lee, who is the Defendant in 22STCV13942, filed a Motion to Deem Cases Related and to Consolidate for All Purposes Including Trial with the hearing set in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse. On January 25, 2024, the Judge Michelle C. Kim denied this motion, stating: “[t]he two cases arise from separate automobile accidents occurring nearly one year apart from each other, at different locations, and do not warrant relating the two. Even if the Court were to consider Lee’s arguments that Plaintiff sustained similar injuries in both accidents with overlapping treatments, each automobile accident is an independent action involving different parties, witnesses, and circumstances of the incident. (CRC, Rule 3.300.) Further, the Court notes the proximity of the trial date in the instant action, currently set for March 12, 2024. Based on the foregoing, the request to deem the two cases related is denied.”

This case is currently pending in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse with trial set for July 18, 2024.

Background of 22STCV13942 Martins v. Lee

On April 27, 2022, Plaintiff Antonio Martins filed 22STCV13942 against Gibran Lee asserting claims for motor vehicle negligence and negligence per se. The complaint alleges Defendant Lee caused an automobile collision on July 10, 2020 near Tremaine Avenue that resulted in Plaintiff’s injury.

Defendant Lee filed an answer on August 29, 2022. On April 3, 2023, Defendant Lee filed a motion to consolidate, which Judge Kerry Bensinger took off-calendar on August 2, 2023 citing procedural defects.

This case is currently pending in Department 27 of the Spring Street Courthouse with trial set for April 9, 2024.

Defendants’ Evidentiary Objections

Objection Nos. 1, 3, and 4 are OVERRULED. Objection No. 2 is SUSTAINED.

Motion to Relate Cases

Standard

In the event that the pertinent judge under California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(h)(1) does not relate any of the cases set forth in a Notice of Related Case, Department 1 may relate the matters on noticed motion. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(h)(1)(D); LASC Local Rules, rule 3.3(f)(3).)

The Court Declines to Relate the Two Cases 

The court denied Plaintiff’s request to relate the two cases on June 2, 2022, June 23, 2022, and on August 29, 2023. The court also denied a motion to relate filed by Defendant Lee on January 25, 2024. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 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).)

Plaintiff contends the cases “should be related because: (1) they require the determination of the same or identical questions of law and fact; and/or (2) are likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges.” (Mot. at 6:5-7.) Specifically, Plaintiff contends “[t]here is a substantial overlap in injuries and medical treatment in relation to the first and second accidents,” (id. at 7:10-11), and cites potential commonalities in determining causation and damages in both cases.

To be related pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a)(2), the cases must “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.” Plaintiff’s motion contends the cases are related based solely upon the second portion under this subsection: that the cases “require[e] the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact.” (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a)(2).) As Plaintiff acknowledges, the cases “arise from two automobile accidents occurring approximately ten months from one another.” (Mot. at 3:15-16.) Accordingly, the cases are not related under Rule 3.300(a)(2) as they do not arise from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events.

The cases also will not require a substantial duplication of judicial resources if the cases are heard by different judicial officers, (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a)(4), and this Court agrees with the January 25, 2024 order declining to relate the two cases.  The two cases involve entirely different alleged accidents, involving different defendants, occurring at different times, and in different places. The judicial officers in each case will be required to address different factual and legal issues related to each incident, including the applicable duty of care and breach thereof as well as the potential liability of the named entity Defendant in 21STCV33424. The issues of causation and damages identified by Plaintiff are not sufficient to demonstrate there will be a substantial duplication of judicial resources if the cases proceed separately. Moreover, both cases have been pending for a significant time and will soon proceed by separate jury trials: 21STCV33424 on July 18, 2024 and 22STCV139412 on April 9, 2023. The Court finds the cases are not related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300.

The Court separately finds good cause not to relate the actions. (See Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(g) (permitting consideration of whether there is good cause not to relate cases).) Plaintiff significantly delayed the filing of the instant motion. The trial dates in both actions are approaching and relation would likely substantially delay trial in both cases.

Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.