Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 22STCV00446, Date: 2023-05-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV00446    Hearing Date: May 11, 2023    Dept: 1

22STCV00446           DANA MICHEL MUSHARBASH vs CURBSIDE HANDI-TRANSPORT

Plaintiff Dana Musharbash’s Motion to Find Cases Related

TENTATIVE RULING:  The motion is DENIED.

Background of 22STCV39067 Musharbash v. Curbside Handi-Transport, et al

On January 5, 2022, Plaintiff Dana Michel Musharbash filed this action against Defendants Curbside Handi-Transport, LLC, Oscar Jacob Rubio, Georgie Gomez, and Manuel Salazar asserting a single cause of action for negligence. The complaint alleges Defendant Rubio’s vehicle collided with Plaintiff on June 1, 2021 while Plaintiff was lawfully within a crosswalk resulting in significant injury.

On January 18, 2022, Plaintiff dismissed Defendant Curbside Handi-Transport, LLC with prejudice. On March 15, 2022, Plaintiff substituted Quick Fleet Services, Inc. as Doe 1. On September 7, 2022, Plaintiff substituted Pacific Bell Telephone Company dba AT&T CA as Doe 2, Ernie Rodriquez Flores as Doe 3, and Lan Gao as Doe 4. On October 6, 2022, Plaintiff substituted Uber Technologies, Inc. as Doe 5.

Plaintiff dismissed Pacific Bell Telephone Company dba AT&T CA with prejudice on October 11, 2022.

On October 27, 2022, Lan Gao filed a cross-complaint against Oscar Jacob Rubio, Georgie Gomez, Manuel Salazar, Quick Fleet Services, Inc., Ernie Rodriquez Flores, and Uber Technologies.

Plaintiff dismissed Uber Technologies, and Ernie Rodriquez Flores without prejudice on December 16, 2022 and Lan Gao without prejudice on December 20, 2022.

On January 24, 2023 Plaintiff filed a Notice of Related Case involving civil law case 22STCV00446 and 22STCV39067 Musharbash v. Uber Technologies. Lan Gao dismissed the entire cross-complaint without prejudice on February 22, 2023.

Background of 22STCV39067 Musharbash v. Uber Technologies

On December 15, 2022, Plaintiff Dana Michel Musharbash filed a separate action against Defendants Uber Technologies, Rasier-CA, LLC, Ernie Rodriquez Flores, Debbie Flores, and Lan Gao. The complaint asserts causes of action for motor vehicle negligence, general negligence, and negligent entrustment. Plaintiff’s claims arise out of a motor vehicle collision on April 19, 2022 “at or near I-210 w/b (freeway) approximately 500 feet east of Mount Olive Drive.”

On January 19, 2023, Lan Gao filed a cross-complaint against Uber Technologies, Rasier-CA, LLC, Rasier, LLC, Ernie Rodriquez Flores, and Debbie Flores for indemnification, apportionment of fault, and declaratory relief.

Motion

On April 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to relate civil law cases 22STCV00446 and 22STCV39067.

Opposition

In their separately filed oppositions, Defendants Lan Gao and Ernie Rodriguez Flores argue the cases do not satisfy any of the grounds for relation under California Rules of Court, rule 3.300 as they involve two entirely separate events.

Defendant Ernie Rodriguez Flores impermissibly relies upon trial court orders in his opposition. The Court disregards these citations. (City of Bakersfield v. West Park Home Owners Assn. & Friends (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 1199, 1210 (“the City relies on similar financing plans having been validated by at least eight California trial courts. The City requests this court to take judicial notice of these trial court orders. However, trial court orders hold no precedential value. Accordingly, we will neither rely upon, nor take judicial notice of, these orders.”) (internal citation omitted); Aguirre v. Amscan Holdings, Inc. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1290, 1299 n.5 (“Rule 8.1115 of the California Rules of Court prohibits the citation of unpublished opinions of California state courts, with certain limited exceptions. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a).) We shall disregard the unpublished superior court opinions cited and relied upon by plaintiff.”).)

Reply

In reply, Plaintiff contends most of the parties have not opposed the motion, Gao failed to cite case authority supporting his conclusions, Flores lacks standing to oppose the motion, and addresses the merits of Flores’ improperly cited superior court cases.

Plaintiff does not cite any authority in support of the argument that Flores lacks standing. Flores remains a party in 22STCV39067 and properly filed the opposition under the same case number as Plaintiff’s motion. Flores does not lack standing.

Motion to Relate Cases

Standard

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).)

The Cases are Not Related within the Meaning of Rule 3.300

While not reflected in any court order, Plaintiff provides a copy of a Notice of Rejection of Electronic Filing dated March 7, 2023 which states, in relevant part, “Documents Electronically Rejected Notice of Related Case This electronic filing was returned based on the following reason(s): Other - Denied.” (Mohrman Decl. Ex. 38.) The court has not issued any other orders regarding the Notice. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 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).)

To argue the cases are related, Plaintiff contends “[b]oth matters involve Dana, and both matters involve Claims of Negligence. They both arise from motor vehicle involved incidents that occurred within the County of Los Angeles. Both events injured the same body parts of the Plaintiff (right ankle, neck, and back). The evidence necessary to assess causation and extent of injury overlap (i.e., many if not all the medical reports include Dana attributing the pain in her ankle, neck, and back to a culmination of both events).” (Mot. at 10:9-14.)

The two cases do not involve the same parties as Plaintiff is the only common party to both cases. While Plaintiff initially added Defendants Gao, Uber, and Flores as defendants in 22STCV00446, each have been dismissed from that case. Additionally, Rasier-CA, LLC and Rasier, LLC were never parties to 22STCV00446. (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).) Plaintiff’s first case, 22STCV00446, arises out of an alleged June 1, 2021 incident involving Plaintiff as a pedestrian and the second case, 22STCV39067, arises out of an alleged April 19, 2022 incident involving Plaintiff as a passenger in an Uber. The two cases do not involve property claims. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a)(3).) Finally, the cases will not require a substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a)(4).) The two cases involve entirely different alleged accidents, involving different parties, occurring at different times, and in different places. The judicial officers in each case will be required to address different factual and legal issues, including the applicable duty of care and breach thereof as well the potential liability of the named Defendants which were not driving the vehicles at issue.

Plaintiff also contends she “will be submitted to multiple, duplicative depositions and medical exams over the same claims of injuries,” the Defendants will blame one another for Plaintiff’s injuries, Plaintiff bears no blame for the two incidents, “Defendant Lan Gao is a hypocrite,” and failing to grant the motion will “harm the plaintiff yet again” noting she “was pregnant when she was run over in June 2021, and she was with her newborn child in the car when Gao and Ernie played chicken on the freeway.” (Mot. at 10:15-12:19.) As noted by Defendants in their oppositions, Plaintiff does not adequately connect any of these arguments to the four grounds enumerated in California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a). Thus, Plaintiff’s arguments are unpersuasive and immaterial to the motion.

The Court finds the cases are not related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300 and the motion is DENIED.

Conclusion

Plaintiff Dana Musharbash’s Motion to Find Cases Related is DENIED.