Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 22STCV39928, Date: 2024-08-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV39928    Hearing Date: August 15, 2024    Dept: 1

22STCV39928           DOUGLAS A. BAGBY vs JOSEPH DANIEL DAVIS

Plaintiff’s Motion for the Court to Find the Actions Pending in Departments 50 and 58 are Related Pursuant to Rule 3.300(H)(1)(D)

TENTATIVE RULING:  Plaintiff’s Motion for the Court to Find the Actions Pending in Departments 50 and 58 are Related Pursuant to Rule 3.300(H)(1)(D) is DENIED.  Counsel for Defendants to give notice. 

Background of BC663174 Bagby v. Davis

On May 26, 2017, Plaintiff Douglas Bagby filed BC663174 naming Joseph Daniel Davis and Edward J. Grastorf as the defendants. The complaint asserted causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) malpractice; (3) declaratory relief; and (4) injunctive orders. Plaintiff alleged Defendant Davis failed to adequately represent Plaintiff in a personal injury action against Defendant Grastorf.

On September 25, 2018, Judge Joseph R. Kalin entered a default judgment in favor of Plaintiff. On July 23, 2020, Judge John P. Doyle entered an amended judgment in favor of Plaintiff.

On March 10, 2022, Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki issued an order denying Plaintiff’s motion to enforce the amended judgment finding “this Court has no authority to enforce the amended judgment in the manner sought by plaintiff, as the plaintiff has other legal remedies under the enforcement of judgment law and the uniform fraudulent transfer act.”

On August 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Related Case involving BC663174 and 22STCV39928 Bagby v. Davis. On January 25, 2024, Judge Iwasaki issued an order finding BC663174 and 22STCV39928 were not related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a).

This action is assigned to Department 58 of the Stanely Mosk Courthouse.

Background of 22STCV39928 Bagby v. Davis

On December 22, 2022, Plaintiff Douglas Bagby filed 22STCV39928 naming Joseph Daniel Davis as the defendant. On January 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint adding Hilary Davis as a defendant.

On February 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed the Third Amended Complaint alleging Defendants have improperly prevented Plaintiff from recovering on the judgment entered in BC663174.

Defendant Joseph Davis violated the Uniform Voidable Transaction Act by transferring $8.6 million out of his bank accounts and transferring $3.5 million to Nevis Island, LLC. The TAC further alleges Defendants agreed to hinder, delay, and defraud Plaintiff’s collection efforts through a stipulated judgment of dissolution of marriage.  

This case is currently pending in Department 50 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse.  

Judicial Notice

The request for judicial notice of the December 27, 2022 opinion from the California Court of Appeal in B320533 Bagby v. Davis is GRANTED. (Evid. Code § 452(d).) The remaining requests, which involve court documents from Idaho and a family law action, are DENIED as immaterial to relating the two civil actions. (People ex rel. Lockyer v. Shamrock Foods Co. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 415, 422 n.2 (“any matter to be judicially noticed must be relevant to a material issue.”).)

Motion to Relate Cases

Standard

Pursuant to 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 Court Declines to Relate the Cases at Issue

On January 25, 2024, Judge Iwasaki issued an order declining to relate BC663174 and 22STCV39928. Accordingly, the motion is properly brought in Department 1. (LASC Local Rules, rule 3.3(f)(3).)

As noted above, the Local Rules of the Los Angeles Superior Court permit Department 1 to relate pending cases. (LASC Local Rules, rule 3.3(f)(3).) Los Angeles Superior Court case BC663174 was disposed of by judgment on September 25, 2018 as modified on July 23, 2020, and is therefore no longer pending within the meaning of Local Rule 3.3(f)(3). Because only one case listed in the Notice of Related Case is currently pending, the Court declines to relate the two cases.

Separately, Department 1 declines to relate the two cases on substantive grounds. 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).)

The cases do not involve the same parties as Hilary Davis is not a party to BC663174 and Edward Grastorf is not a party to 22STCV39928. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a)(1).) Additionally, the cases do not involve the same or similar claims. (Ibid.) The cases also 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).)The first case, BC663174, involved claims of legal malpractice and arose out of Joseph Daniels’ provision of legal services, whereas 22STCV39928 seeks to avoid various asset transfers to aid in enforcement of the judgment and arises out of various asset transfers. The cases do not involve claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the same property as no specific property was at issue in BC663174. (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).) As noted herein, BC663174 was reduced to judgment on September 25, 2018 as modified on July 23, 2020. Judge Iwasaki began presiding over the post-judgment issues in BC663174 on February 28, 2022, did not enter the judgment or the modification thereof, and determined Plaintiff’s recourse was to file a separate action. While Plaintiff raises the issue of similar discovery, (Mot. at 5:1-6:11), any overlap does not indicate a substantial duplication of judicial resources will be required as the fraudulent transfer claims are not at issue in BC663174.

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