Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 23STCV04278, Date: 2024-08-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV04278    Hearing Date: August 29, 2024    Dept: 1

23STCV04278           MANUEL DESILVEIRA, et al. vs MARISCOS BAHIA, INC., et al.

Defendant Mariscos Bahia’s Motion for Order to Relate Cases

TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant Mariscos Bahia’s Motion for Order to Relate Cases is GRANTED.  Department 1 relates 23STCV04278 and 24STCV03147. Both cases are currently pending in Department 29 of the Spring Street Courthouse and no reassignment is required.  Counsel for the moving Defendant to give notice.

Background of 23STCV04278 DeSilveira v. Mariscos Bahia

On February 27, 2023, Plaintiffs Manuel DeSilveira and Gorete DeSilveira filed this action against Mariscos Bahia, Inc. and Rene Miguel Carillo arising out of motor vehicle incident that occurred on February 24, 2022 at Finch Road, 132 feet west of Codoni Avenue, in unincorporated Stanislaus County, California. The complaint asserted claims for motor vehicle negligence and loss of consortium. On September 29, 2023, Plaintiffs added Mariscos Bahia (Phoenix), Inc. as a defendant.

On January 25, 2024, the court entered a request for dismissal as to Plaintiff Gorete DeSilveira.

On April 2, 2024, Judge Lynne M. Hobbs issued an order finding 23STCV04278 and 24STCV03147 Bledsoe v. Mariscos Bahia were related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300.

On April 23, 2024, Judge Hobbs issued an order finding the cases were not related.

On April 24, 2024, the court granted the Modesto Irrigation District’s motion for leave to intervene. The complaint in intervention, filed on April 25, 2024, seeks reimbursement for worker’s compensation benefits paid to Plaintiff.

This case is currently pending in Department 29 of the Spring Street Courthouse with trial set for January 27, 2025.

Background of 24STCV03147 Bledsoe v. Mariscos Bahia, Inc.

On February 7, 2024, Plaintiffs Paul Bledsoe, Justing Smith, Courtney Smith, and Leonard Mitchell filed this action against Mariscos Bahia, Inc., Mariscos Bahia (Phoenix), Inc. and Rene Miguel Carillo arising out of motor vehicle incident that occurred on February 24, 2022 at Finch Road, 132 feet west of Codoni Avenue, in unincorporated Stanislaus County, California. The complaint asserted causes of action for motor vehicle negligence, general negligence, and loss of consortium.

This case is currently pending in Department 29 of the Spring Street Courthouse with the next hearing set for September 6, 2024.

Motion to Relate Cases

Standard

In the event that the pertinent judge under California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(h)(1) does not relate any of the cases set forth in a Notice of Related Case, Department 1 may relate the matters on noticed motion. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(h)(1)(D); LASC Local Rules, rule 3.3(f)(3).)

Discussion

As an initial matter, the Court notes the relief sought in Defendant’s motion, to relate 23STCV04278 and 24STCV03147, is largely moot as a practical matter. The effect of relating two cases is to place them both in the same department before the same judicial officer. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(h)(1)(A).) Here, both cases are already pending in Department 29 of the Spring Street Courthouse before Judge Steven A. Ellis.

In opposition, Plaintiff DeSilveira argues the motion is procedurally defective citing Code of Civil Procedure section 1008. (Opp. at 1:19-2:5.) However, this statute does not apply here. Defendant’s motion is expressly authorized by California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(h)(1)(D) and LASC Local Rules, rule 3.3(f)(3) and therefore is not constrained by the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1008. On April 23, 2024, Judge Hobbs issued an order finding the cases were not related. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is properly made in 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).)

As seen above, the cases do not involve the same parties as the Plaintiffs are different in each case. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a)(1).) The cases also do not assert property claims and therefore do not involve claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the same property. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a)(3).)

However, the cases 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)), and are likely to require a substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a)(4).) Both cases arise out of the same motor vehicle incident on February 22, 2024 near the intersection of Finch Road and Codoni Avenue, in an unincorporated area of Stanislaus County. Thus, the cases will require the determination of identical questions of law and fact regarding the incident and its cause as well as any potential discovery disputes and pretrial motions. Having a single judicial officer preside over both cases promotes judicial economy. Department 1 finds the cases are related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300.  

The motion is GRANTED.