Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 21STCV44257, Date: 2023-03-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV44257    Hearing Date: March 16, 2023    Dept: 1

21STCV44257           HELENE SPEARS vs PARK 'N FLY, LLC, et al.

Motion for Transfer, Coordination, and Consolidation of Noncomplex Cases Filed in Different Courts Pursuant to CCP §§ 403 and 404.1 and CRC Rule 3-500

TENTATIVE RULING:  The Motion for Transfer, Coordination, and Consolidation of Noncomplex Cases Filed in Different Courts Pursuant to CCP §§ 403 and 404.1 and CRC Rule 3-500 is GRANTED.  The Court orders San Bernardino Superior Court Case CIV SB 2133375 Olds v. Edison Flowers, et al transferred to the Los Angeles Superior Court for consolidation with Los Angeles County civil law case 21STCV44258.

Defendants are ordered to “promptly serve the order on all parties to each case and send it to the Judicial Council and to the presiding judge of the court from which each case is to be transferred,” (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.500(e)), and “promptly take all appropriate action necessary to assure that the transfer takes place and that proceedings are initiated in the other court or courts to complete consolidation with the case pending in that court.” (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.500(f).)

Moving party to give notice.

Background

On December 3, 2021, Plaintiff Helene Spears filed this action against Defendants Park N’ Fly, LLC, Edison Flowers, BCD Parking, Inc., and Park Holding, Inc. asserting causes of action for motor vehicle negligence, general negligence, and premises liability. The complaint alleges Plaintiff suffered physical injuries while a passenger on a shuttle at the Ontario Park ‘N Fly on December 4, 2019. Plaintiff alleges the shuttle collided with the concrete base of a light pole.

Also on December 3, 2021, Plaintiff Edward Paul Olds filed San Bernardino County Superior Court Case CIV SB 2133375 Olds v. Edison Flowers, et al against Defendants Edison Mervin Flowers, BCD Parking, Inc., Merchants Automotive Group, Inc., Park ‘N Fly, LLC, and Park ‘N Fly Services, LLC. Plaintiff Olds alleges he was a passenger on the same shuttle and suffered injuries from the collision. Plaintiff Olds asserts causes of action for motor vehicle negligence, common carrier negligence, and general negligence.

On October 31, 2022, Defendants filed a notice indicating they had filed a motion for transfer, coordination, and consolidation in San Bernardino County Superior Court Case CIV SB 2133375 Olds v. Edison Flowers, et al. On November 30, 2022, Judge Wilfred J. Schneider Jr. of the San Bernadino County Superior Court issued an order summarily denying Defendants’ motion. (RJN Ex. 6.)

On December 21, 2022, Defendants filed another motion for transfer, coordination, and consolidation in the Los Angeles Superior Court with the hearing set in Department 27. On January 20, 2023, Judge Kerry Bensinger ordered the motion off-calendar noting motions for coordination of noncomplex cases must be heard in Department 1.

Motion

On February 16, 2023, Defendants filed the instant motion seeking to transfer San Bernardino County Superior Court Case CIV SB 2133375 Olds v. Edison Flowers, et al to the Los Angeles Superior Court for coordination and consolidation with Los Angeles Superior Court case 21STCV44258.

Opposition

In opposition, Plaintiff Spears and Plaintiff Olds argue the cases are not at the same stage of litigation, Defendants have delayed the litigation, a transfer is only convenient to Defendants, there is no meaningful risk of inconsistent verdicts, and coordination will not render settlement more likely based upon Defendants’ prior conduct. Plaintiff Olds acknowledges the commonality between the cases, but argues it is insignificant compared to the differences.

Reply

The Court did not receive a timely reply. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b).)

Request for Judicial Notice

Plaintiff Helene Spears requests the Court take judicial notice of various court records filed in each case. 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

Defendants previously filed a motion seeking coordination in the San Bernardino Superior Court, which Judge Schneider, Jr. denied. California Rules of Court, rule 3.500(h) provides “[i]f after considering the motion the judge determines that the action or actions pending in another court should not be transferred to the judge's court but instead all the actions that are subject to the motion to transfer should be transferred and consolidated in another court, the judge may order the parties to prepare, serve, and file a motion to have the actions transferred to the appropriate court.” Judge Schneider, Jr. does not appear to have entered this order as the minute order summarily denied the motion. (RJN Ex. 6.)

The motion is supported by the declaration of Defendants’ counsel, Marie L. Wrighten, which states the cases are not complex, (Wrighten Decl. ¶ 3), Defendants attempted to obtain an agreement for the transfer, (Id. ¶ 6), and Defendants notified the parties of their obligation to disclose information concerning any other motions to transfer that would be affected by granting the instant motion. (Id. ¶ 7.) The declaration addresses the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.500(c).

The Actions Are Not Complex

The Court finds the actions are not complex within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.400, which the parties do not contest. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.500(d)(1).) The two 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).)

Predominating and Significant Common Questions of Law and Fact

The parties disagree as to whether the two actions involve predominating and significant common questions of law and fact. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.500(d)(2).) Defendants note both cases arise out of the same motor vehicle accident and involve multiple defendants who are alleged to be liable for both Plaintiffs’ injuries. Defendants contend “the only differences between the actions arise from the specific damages alleged by individual Plaintiffs.” (Wrighten Decl. ¶ 4(a).) In their oppositions, both Plaintiffs focus on the unique issues related to their injuries and damages. (See Olds Opp. at 3:11-25; Spears Opp. at 6:2-19.) While the damages issues are largely unique to each plaintiff, they do not diminish the significant, predominating commonalities between the cases. The cases arise out of the same accident. The facts surrounding the accident and the relationship between the defendants, as well as the legal issues regarding their liability are predominating, significant questions in both cases. Both complaints are based on claims of negligence and Defendants owe the same duties to each Plaintiff as passengers in the same vehicle.

The Court finds the cases share common questions of fact or law that are predominating and significant to the litigation, which weighs in favor of transfer and consolidation.

Convenience of Parties, Witnesses, and Counsel

As evidenced by the parties’ pleadings, counsel for all parties are located in Los Angeles. Based upon the addresses listed in Defendants’ subpoenas, a number of Plaintiff Spears’ treating physicians work in Los Angeles County. (Byrd Decl. Ex. E.) The parties do not address whether Los Angeles County is a convenient location for any specific witnesses or either of the parties. However, it is more convenient for the witnesses and parties for the litigation to proceed in a single court and the San Bernardino County court declined to initiate a transfer of Los Angeles County case to San Bernardino. Defendants’ counsel states “all parties and witnesses in the two cases are the same, except for treating physicians and experts.” (Wrighten Decl. ¶ 4(b).) The cases do not involve all the same parties. Defendant Park Holding Inc. is a named defendant in 21STCV44258, but not in the San Bernardino case.  However, as noted by Defendants, the driver and all passengers are likely witnesses in both cases and Plaintiffs are percipient witnesses for each other’s claims.

In opposition, Plaintiff Olds states he has “five nonparty witnesses that are different from Spears.” (Olds Opp. at 3:28.) However, Plaintiff Olds does not provide evidence supporting this claim. (Smith, Smith & Kring v. Superior Court (Oliver) (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 573, 578 (“The matters set forth in the unverified Statement of Facts and in memoranda of points and authorities are not evidence.”); Cole v. Town of Los Gatos (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 749, 767 n.8 (“It goes without saying that statements in a memorandum of points and authorities are not evidence.”).) Plaintiff Olds also does not identify these witnesses or address the effect that trial in Los Angeles would have on them. Plaintiff Olds does not provide evidence that transfer to Los Angeles County would inconvenience him or his Los Angeles counsel.  

Plaintiff Olds also contends “it is only the convenience of the nonparty witnesses that may be considered by the court.” (Olds Opp. at 4:3-4.) However, Plaintiff cites authority regarding motions to transfer venue pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 397, which is not at issue here. Code of Civil Procedure section 404.1, which governs Defendants’ motion herein, expressly permits consideration of the convenience of the parties. (Code Civ. Proc. § 404.1 (“Coordination of civil actions sharing a common question of fact or law is appropriate if one judge hearing all of the actions for all purposes in a selected site or sites will promote the ends of justice taking into account . . . the convenience of parties”); Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.500(d)(3).)

On balance, the convenience of the parties, witnesses, and counsel, weigh in favor of transfer and consolidation. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(d)(3).)

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)), weigh in favor of transfer and consolidation.

The two cases arise out of the same accident. Efficient utilization of judicial facilities and staff resources is promoted by having both cases in a single superior court. The two cases were filed on the same day and remain in the relatively early stages of litigation with some written discovery propounded, but no depositions taken. (Wrighten Decl. ¶ 4(c).) While a June 2, 2023 trial date has been set in 21STCV44258, trial would likely be continued if the San Bernardino County case were transferred and consolidated with it. However, despite the representations of Defendants to the contrary, (Mot. at 7:5-8), this Court finds it unlikely the parties in 21STCV44258 would be ready to proceed with the June 2, 2023 trial date given the asserted stage of the parties’ litigation.

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).) The two cases arise out of the same accident. Because have each raised claims sounding in negligence, there will be an opportunity for inconsistent or duplicative rulings if the two cases remain pending in separate superior courts. Duplicate proceedings waste judicial resources and inconsistent rulings, particularly regarding discovery, could result in significant confusion and protracted motion practice. Moreover, inconsistent judgments regarding the defendants’ liability for the same incident must be avoided. The Court finds the disadvantages of duplicative and inconsistent rulings, orders, or judgments by having the two cases related to the same accident proceed separately weighs in favor of transfer and consolidation.

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.”

Regarding the likelihood of settlement, Defendants’ counsel states “with the two actions pending in different departments and counties, settlement is rendered difficult. The likelihood of settlement would increase if the two actions were to be organized by a single judge, so that a global settlement can be reached and the actions could be dispensed with at the same time.” (Wrighten Decl. ¶ 4(e).) As noted by Plaintiffs, Defendants attended mediation with Olds only and failed to settle the case. (Mnatsakanian Decl. ¶ 3; Byrd Decl. ¶¶ 9-10.) Accordingly, denying the motion will not increase the likelihood of settlement. Granting the motion and having the cases proceed before a single judicial officer reduces uncertainty and variation in the litigation, which would tend to aid settlement discussions. The Court finds this factor weighs in favor of transfer and consolidation as well.

On balance, the Court finds the relevant factors demonstrate the ends of justice will be promoted by transfer and consolidation of the two actions in Los Angeles County. Accordingly, the Court orders San Bernardino Superior Court Case CIV SB 2133375 Olds v. Edison Flowers, et al transferred to the Los Angeles Superior Court for consolidation with Los Angeles County civil law case 21STCV44258.

The Court Consolidates the Actions for Trial

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 403, “[t]he court to which a case is transferred may order the cases consolidated for trial pursuant to Section 1048 without any further motion or hearing.” Section 1048(a) provides “[w]hen actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.” The Court consolidates the actions for trial without prejudice to the parties or assigned judicial officer determining that consolidation for all purposes is preferable or, at a later stage in the litigation, that consolidation is no longer appropriate.