Judge Michelle Williams Court, Case Number: 23STCP00626, Date: 2023-06-22 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 23STCP00626, Date: 2023-06-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCP00626 Hearing Date: June 22, 2023 Dept: 1

23STCP00626 COALITION FOR A SCENIC LOS ... vs LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

Petitioners’, Respondent’s, and Real Party in Interest’s Joint and Stipulated Motion to Relate Cases

TENTATIVE RULING: Petitioners’, Respondent’s, and Real Party in Interest’s Joint and Stipulated Motion to Relate Cases is DENIED. Respondent to give notice.

Background

On February 28, 2023, the Coalition for a Scenic Los Angeles petitioned the court for a writ of mandate naming Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority as the respondent. The petition alleges Respondent violated CEQA when it approved the Transportation Communication Network Program “to facilitate the installation of digital display structures on Metro property within the City of Los Angeles.” (Pet. ¶ 1.)

On March 7, 2023, Petitioner filed a Notice of Related Case indicating this petition was related to 23STCP00670 Citizens for a Better Los Angeles v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. In 23STCP00670, the Citizens For A Better Los Angeles similarly challenges the approval “of the Transportation Communication Network Program . . . to facilitate the installation of digital display structures on Metro property within the City of Los Angeles” violated CEQA. (Pet. ¶ 1.)

On March 21, 2023, Judge James C. Chalfant accepted a peremptory challenge filed by Respondent in 23STCP00626. On April 6, 2023, Judge Stephen Morgan accepted a peremptory challenge filed by Petitioner Coalition for a Scenic Los Angeles in 23STCP00626.

On April 14, 2023, Judge Maurice A. Leiter issued an order finding 23STCP00626 and 23STCP00670 were related and assigning both cases to Department 54. Prior to the order relating the cases, 23STCP00670 was assigned to Judge Mitchell L. Beckloff.

On May 1, 2023, Judge Leiter accepted a peremptory challenge filed by real party in interest All Vision, LLC in 23STCP00670. On May 3, 2023, Judge Leiter referred both cases to Department 1 for review and potential reassignment.

On May 9, 2023, Department 1 issued an order finding “the interest of justice is not served by reassigning case number 23STCP00670 to a new Judicial Officer. Therefore, this Court determines that cases 23STCP00670 and 23STCP00626 should no longer be related.” The Court returned 23STCP00670 to Judge Beckloff and 23STCP00626 to Judge Leiter.

Motion

On May 30, 2023, Respondent, Petitioners, and real party in interest All Vision filed the instant motion to relate 23STCP00626 and 23STCP00670 and assign both cases to Judge Beckloff in Department 86.

The motion indicates it is a joint motion and no party filed a timely opposition.

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.” (See also Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(h)(1)(D).)

The Cases Shall Not Be Related a Second Time and Reassigned

The parties filed a joint motion arguing the two petition cases should be related again and heard by the same judicial officer. The two petitions challenge the same project approval by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, assert similar violations of CEQA, and seek the same relief. As Judge Leiter previously determined, the cases satisfy several grounds for discretionary relation under California Rules of Court, rule 3.300.

The parties note “[p]eremptory challenges under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 have previously been filed and granted for three CEQA judges—Judge Chalfant (Department 85), Judge Morgan (Department A14), and Judge Leiter (Department 54), but no party has the right to file a peremptory challenge in Department 86.” (Mot. at 8:10-13.) Accordingly, the parties “suggest that it would be appropriate and convenient to assign both cases to Department 86, where the Citizens case (No. 23STCP00670) is already assigned, and no peremptory challenges have been filed.” (Mot. at 8:20-22.)

While captioned a motion to relate, the parties’ motion seeks reconsideration of this Court’s May 9, 2023 order unrelating the cases and finding the “interest of justice is not served by reassigning case number 23STCP00670 to a new Judicial Officer.” There have been no changes in the two cases since May 9, 2023 and the Court finds no basis to deviate from its prior order.

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(h)(1)(A), when civil cases are related, they are assigned to the judge with the earliest filed case. Here, 23STCP00626 pending before Judge Leiter, is the earliest filed case. As the parties note, both cases cannot be assigned to Judge Leiter due to the acceptance of a peremptory challenge in the later filed case. The judicial administration goals of the related case rules must yield to the parties’ right to file a peremptory challenge. (See e.g. Rothstein v. Superior Court (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 424, 431.) Moreover, the peremptory challenge statutes should not be used as a mechanism for selecting the parties’ preferred judicial officer. (Ibid. n.3. See also The Home Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1025, 1032 (“section 170.6 is designed to prevent abuse by parties that merely seek to . . . obtain a more favorable judicial forum.”); LASC Local Rule 3.3(b) (providing for random case assignment).) While the parties raise the specter of inconsistent rulings, both the litigants and the assigned judicial officers are capable of managing such risk. (Rothstein, supra, 3 Cal.App.5th at 432 (“we are confident the parties will keep the respective judicial officers aware of relevant developments in both actions so that the possibility of conflicting rulings is minimized, if not eliminated.”).)

The joint motion is DENIED. The cases shall remain as assigned by this Court on May 9, 2023.