Judge Michelle Williams Court, Case Number: 22STCV11897, Date: 2023-11-09 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 22STCV11897, Date: 2023-11-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV11897 Hearing Date: November 9, 2023 Dept: 1

22STCV11897 AUDREY PETERS vs CAMERON DAVID ARTHUR HERBER

Defendants’ Motion for Coordination of this Action with Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 22TRCV00996

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is DENIED.

Background of 22STCV11897 Peters v. Herber

On April 7, 2022, Audrey Peters filed an unlimited civil complaint against Cameron David Arthur Herber and BC2 Environmental, LLC, which is currently pending in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse. The complaint alleges Defendant Herber caused his vehicle to collide with Plaintiff Peters’ vehicle on April 7, 2020.

On January 25, 2023 and February 1, 2023, Defendants filed a Notice of Related Cases on pleading paper, rather than on optional Judicial Council form CM-015, that listed the relevant cases as “Audrey Peters vs. Cameron David Arthur Herber, et al., Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 22STCV11897” and “Audrey Gayl Peters vs. Stacia Elizabeth Trimmer, Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 22TRCV00997.”

On May 24, 2023, the court issued an order on Defendants’ motion to consolidate, noting cases cannot be consolidated unless they are in the same department and “the cases have not been deemed related. Defendants filed two Notices of Related Case, both of which are identified as having listed the incorrect case number and in need of re-filing. The Court denies the motion for failure to comply with the local rules.”

Neither party filed another Notice of Related Case in 22STCV11897 to correct the error identified in the court’s order.

Rather, Defendants filed a motion for coordination, with the hearing set in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse. On October 2, 2023, Judge Lisa R. Jaskol issued an order denying the motion, noting Los Angeles Superior Court Local Rule 3.3(h) provides “Coordination motions seeking to transfer a case or cases to the Central District shall be filed and heard in Department 1.”

Background of 22TRCV00996 Peters v. Trimmer

On October 20, 2022, Audrey Peters filed an unlimited civil action against Stacia Elizabeth Trimmer, which is currently pending in Department 8 of the Inglewood Courthouse. The complaint alleges Defendant Trimmer caused their vehicle to collide with Plaintiff Peters’ vehicle on November 24, 2020.

On June 8, 2023, Defendants Herber and BC2 Environmental filed a Notice of Related Case in 22TRCV00996 on Judicial Council form CM-015.

Discussion

Defendants’ motion relies upon Code of Civil Procedure section 403 and California Rules of Court, rule 3.500 to argue that 22STCV11897 and 22TRCV00996 should be coordinated and analyzes the two cases based upon the factors governing coordination.

However, Defendants’ motion is procedurally defective. Coordination is a procedure whereby cases pending in different superior courts, for example the Los Angeles County Superior Court and Orange County Superior Court, are brought before a single judge in one of the superior courts. (Code Civ. Proc. § 403 (“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.”); Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.500; LASC Local Rules, rule 3.3(h) (“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 404.”).) While 22STCV1197 and 22TRCV00996 are pending in different departments in different districts, they are both within one “court.” (See generally Glade v. Glade (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1441, 1449 (“Even though a superior court is divided into branches or departments, pursuant to California Constitution, article VI, section 4, there is only one superior court in a county and jurisdiction is therefore vested in that court, not in any particular judge or department. Whether sitting separately or together, the judges hold but one and the same court.”); LASC Local Rules, rule 1.1(f) (“The term ‘court’ means the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.”).) Because Code of Civil Procedure section 403 and the related coordination rules govern transfers between “courts,” coordination is not the proper procedure here.

Therefore, Defendants’ motion is DENIED as procedurally improper.

Defendants’ motion states their desire to have 22TRCV00996 heard by the same judicial officer as 22STCV11897. (Mot. at 6:24-27.) The procedurally proper mechanism to seek this result is to file a Notice of Related Case with accurate information and in full compliance with the California Rules of Court. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(h)(1)(A) (“Where all the cases listed in the notice are unlimited civil cases, . . . the judge who has the earliest filed case must determine whether the cases must be ordered related and assigned to his or her department.”).)

Defendants failed to comply with the California Rules of Court and therefore have not properly brought a Notice of Related Case before the appropriate judicial officer. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(d), “[t]he Notice of Related Case must be filed in all pending cases listed in the notice and must be served on all parties in those cases.” As stated in the May 24, 2023 order issued in 22STCV11897, Defendants’ Notices of Related Cases, filed on January 25, 2023 and February 1, 2023 in 22STCV11897, contained an incorrect case number. The Court acknowledges Defendants listed the correct case number on the caption, but incorrectly identified the case as 22TRCV00997 in the body of the two Notices. Additionally, these Notices were not filed in 22TRCV00996 as required. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(d).)

On June 8, 2023, Defendants filed a new Notice of Related Case, using Judicial Council form CM-015, in 22TRCV00996. Defendants did not file the new Notice in 22STCV11897 as required. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(d).) As a result, the appropriate judicial officer has not had an opportunity to rule on an accurate, properly filed, and properly served Notice of Related Case. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(h)(1)(A).) While the California Rules of Court and the Local Rules of the Los Angeles Superior Court authorize Department 1 to relate cases upon a noticed motion, (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(h)(1)(D); LASC Local Rules, rule 3.3(f)(3)), the judge designated under Rule 3.300(h)(1)(A) must be given an opportunity to rule on a properly filed Notice.

Accordingly, Defendants must file a new Notice of Related Case, containing the correct case numbers, in 22STCV11897 to allow the appropriate judicial officer an opportunity to rule on the Notice.