Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 22STCV08882, Date: 2023-09-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV08882    Hearing Date: September 21, 2023    Dept: 1

22STCV08882           CLIFTON BERNARD vs THE CITY OF BURBANK

Defendant’s Motion to Relate Cases

TENTATIVE RULING:        The motion is DENIED.

Background of 22STCV08882 Bernard v. City of Burbank

On March 11, 2022, Plaintiff Clifton Bernard filed this action against the City of Burbank arising out of his employment as a water meter mechanic. On May 31, 2022, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint asserting causes of action for: (1) age discrimination; (2) race discrimination; (3) FEHA retaliation; (4) harassment; (5) failure to prevent discrimination and harassment; and (6) whistleblower retaliation.

The FAC alleges Bernard is a 64-year-old African-American male who worked in Defendant’s water meter shop. Plaintiff alleges Water Supervisor Pete Marshall subjected him to insults, derogatory comments, baseless criticism, and interfered with Plaintiff’s job duties. Plaintiff allegedly reported this conduct and Defendant reprimanded Marshall. However, Marshall allegedly engaged in the same conduct thereafter. Plaintif further alleges Defendant selected a younger, Caucasian employee, for the role of Water Supervisor over Plaintiff. Plaintiff also alleges he inadvertently allowed his credentials to expire, corrected the issue, and explained the situation to Defendant, but was given a suspension.

On October 18, 2022, the clerk entered Plaintiff’s request for dismissal of the sixth cause of action for whistleblower retaliation. On November 4, 2022, the court sustained Defendant’s demurrer to the fifth cause of action with leave to amend. Plaintiff did not file a second amended complaint thereafter.

On July 11, 2023, Defendant filed a Notice of Related Case involving 22STCV08882, 23STCV06809 Argueta v. City of Burbank, and 23STCV09389 Vasquez v. City of Burbank.

On July 20, 2023, Judge Teresa A. Beaudet issued an order finding the cases were not related.

Background of 23STCV06809 Argueta v. City of Burbank

On March 28, 2023, Plaintiff Carlos Argueta sued the City of Burbank for claims arising out of his employment as a pipefitter apprentice. The First Amended Complaint asserts causes of action for: (1) hostile work environment harassment; (2) discrimination; and (3) failure to prevent discrimination and harassment.

The FAC alleges Plaintiff Argueta is a Hispanic male hired in 2019 when he was 21 years old. Plaintiff Argueta alleges he was subjected to a hostile work environment based upon his race and national origin, including by Sean Allen, a union steward. The FAC also includes allegations that Argueta witnessed derogatory comments Pete Marshall made about Clifton Bernard and was told to lie during an interview related to Bernard’s complaint about Marshall. Plaintiff Argueta also alleges Cody Paice harassed him and Nick Guin made derogatory comments about Jesse Vasquez, a Hispanic apprentice, and “drew a white supremacist hate symbol . . . on the chalkboard” during a meeting. Plaintiff Argueta alleges he was constructively discharged.

On May 26, 2023, Plaintiff Argueta filed a Notice of Related Case involving 23STCV06809 and 23STCV09389 only. On June 9, 2023, Judge Stephen I. Goorvich issued an order relating 23STCV06809 and 23STCV09389.

Background of 23STCV09389 Vasquez v. City of Burbank

On April 27, 2023, Plaintiff Jesse Vasquez sued the City of Burbank for claims arising out of his employment as a pipefitter apprentice. The First Amended Complaint asserts causes of action for: (1) hostile work environment harassment; (2) discrimination; and (3) failure to prevent discrimination and harassment.

The FAC alleges Plaintiff Vasquez is a Hispanic male who identifies his national origin as Mexico and was hired by Defendant in 2021. Plaintiff Vasquez alleges he was subjected to a hostile work environment based upon his race and national origin, including by Sean Allen, a union steward. The FAC also includes allegations that Plaintiff Vasquez witnessed derogatory comments Pete Marshall made about Clifton Bernard. Plaintiff Vasquez also alleges Nick Guin made derogatory comments about Mexicans, harassed him, and drew “a white supremacist hate symbol . . . on the chalkboard” during a meeting. Plaintiff reported the incident and faced threatening comments as a result. Plaintiff Vasquez alleges he was constructively discharged.

22STCV08882 is Not Related to Either 23STCV06809 or 23STCV09389

On July 20, 2023, Judge Teresa A. Beaudet issued an order finding 22STCV08882 was not related to 23STCV06809 or 23STCV09389 within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300. Accordingly, Defendant’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).)

Defendant contends “all three of these unlimited civil cases involve many of the same parties and witnesses, are based on the same or similar claims, arise from the same or substantially identical incidents or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions or law or fact, are being prosecuted and defended by the same counsel, and are likely for these reasons, and others, to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges.” (Mot. at 3:10-15.) Defendant further contends “the parties entered into identical protective orders in all three matters, Plaintiffs have served nearly identical inspection demands and form interrogatory requests in all three matters, and Defendant intends on shortly serving nearly identical discovery requests from the Bernard Matter on Plaintiffs in the Argueta and Vasquez Matters.” (Id. at 4:15-18.)

The cases do not involve the same parties as only Defendant is a party to all three actions. Additionally, the Bernard case, while involving the same general legal theories under FEHA, does not assert the same claims as the Argueta and Vasquez cases. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a)(1).) The Bernard case also does 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 as the Argueta and Vasquez cases. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a)(2).) The Bernard case arises out of Bernard’s employment as a water meter mechanic, the denial of a supervisory promotion, Pete Marshall’s alleged improper treatment of Bernard, and Bernard’s suspension. The Argueta and Vasquez cases arise out of an alleged shared hostile work environment in their positions as pipefitter apprentices and assert claims for constructive termination. Bernard identifies himself in different protected classes, held a lead position, and his claims are not based upon the same conduct as the other actions.

The cases do not appear to require a substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a)(4).) Defendant references a stipulated protective order, similar written discovery, and a potential joint mediation, (Mot. at 4:15-21), which do not involve a duplication of judicial resources. The assigned judges will be required to resolve different issues and there is insufficient overlap between the Bernard case and the Argueta and Vasquez cases to warrant relation. Contrary to Defendant’s assertions, that the various Plaintiffs worked in the same location and witnessed some of the conduct alleged in each other’s cases does not render the cases related.

The Court declines to relate 22STCV08882 with either 23STCV06809 or 23STCV09389 and the motion is DENIED.