Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 23STCV09780, Date: 2024-06-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV09780    Hearing Date: June 6, 2024    Dept: 1

23STCV09780 DAVID ARGUETA vs THE AMAAD INSTITUTE, et al.

Defendant’s Motion to Relate Cases

TENTATIVE RULING:  Defendant The Amaad Institute’s Motion To Relate [L.A. Local Rule 3.3(f)(3)] is DENIED.  Counsel for Plaintiffs to give notice. 

Background of 23STCV09780 Argueta v. The AMAAD Institute

On May 2, 2023, Plaintiff David Argueta filed this action against The AMAAD Institute, Carl Highshaw, Gerald Garth, Anthony Singleton, and Ryan Sample arising out of Plaintiff’s employment as a Behavioral Health Therapist for Defendant AMAAD Institute. The complaint asserts ten causes of action and alleges Defendant AMAAD Institute treated Plaintiff differently after various complaints and ultimately terminated Plaintiff’s employment while Plaintiff was on leave. Plaintiff alleges he made complaints regarding his pay and classification, assigned work outside his job description, “express” client intakes, misuse of grant funds, and the lack of privacy when discussing client matters. Plaintiff also alleges he went on medical leave on June 3, 2021 due to stress with an original return date of August 3, 2021. Plaintiff’s doctor allegedly extended the leave to October 3, 2021, but Defendant terminated Plaintiff’s employment before the extended period expired.

On July 28, 2023, the court entered the parties’ stipulation dismissing the individual defendants from the action.

On March 25, 2024, Defendant AMAAD Institute filed a Notice of Related Case involving 23STCV09780 and 23STCV10606 Bender v. The AMAAD Institute, indicating the cases were related based upon the first and second grounds enumerated in California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a) without additional explanation.

On April 9, 2024, Judge Daniel M. Crowley issued an order providing: “[t]he Court finds that the following cases, 23STCV09780 and 23STCV10606, are not related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a).”

This case is currently pending in Department 71 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse with trial set for August 26, 2024.

Background of 23STCV10606 Bender v. The AMAAD Institute

On May 11, 2023, Crystal Gayle Bender filed 23STCV10606 against The AMAAD Institute, arising out of her employment as a Therapist for Defendant. The complaint asserts thirteen causes of action. Plaintiff alleges she had her remote status revoked, complained about being the only therapist working on evenings and on Saturdays without additional compensation, was retaliated against for reporting an alleged sexual advance made by an employee to one of Plaintiff’s clients, and complained about building safety as well as a lack of privacy to conduct client meetings. Plaintiff also alleges she experienced “substantial pushback and frustration from defendants” when requesting leave to care for her injured mother. Plaintiff further alleges Defendant terminated her employment while on leave after suffering a panic attack.

This case is currently pending in Department 53 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse with trial set for May 7, 2025.

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).)

Plaintiff’s Opposition is Largely Non-Responsive and the Request for Sanctions is Unsupported

Plaintiff’s opposition is captioned as “Plaintiffs’ Opposition To Defendants Motion To Consolidate,” argues the cases should not be consolidated, and cites Code of Civil Procedure section 1048, which governs consolidation.

As noted by Defendant in reply, its motion is a motion to relate, not a motion to consolidate. Cases cannot be consolidated, and a party cannot move for consolidation, unless the cases are pending in the same Department, typically pursuant to an order relating the two cases. (LASC Local Rules, rule 3.3(g)(1) (“Cases may not be consolidated unless they are in the same department. A motion to consolidate two or more cases may be noticed and heard after the cases, initially filed in different departments, have been related into a single department, or if the cases were already assigned to that department.”).) The motion does not seek consolidation, Department 1 does not consolidate cases, and any arguments related to consolidation are premature.

Plaintiff also seeks sanctions because Defendant “clearly violated local Rule 3(g)(1) by failing to file related cases and transfer both the Argueta matter and Bender matter to the same department.” (Opp. at 9:1-15.) Defendant’s motion to relate is expressly authorized by LASC Local Rules, rule 3.3(f)(3) and there is no basis for Plaintiff’s request for sanctions.

The Motion is Procedurally Proper

Plaintiff argues the motion is improper, citing Code of Civil Procedure section 1008 and the standards for seeking reconsideration of a court order. (Opp. at 4:3-17.) 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 9, 2024, Judge Daniel M. Crowley issued an order declining to relate the two cases at issue. 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).)  

Plaintiff also argues that Defendant unreasonably delayed in filing the motion. (Opp. at 4:18-5:4.) However, the motion was filed on April 18, 2024, only nine days after the April 9, 2024 order declining to relate the cases. Defendant’s motion to relate was promptly filed and there are no time constraints in California Rules of Court 3.300(h)(1)(D) or LASC Local Rules, rule 3.3(f)(3).

The Court Declines to Relate the Cases at Issue

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’s motion contends the cases are related based upon the first and second grounds enumerated in Rule 3.300(a). (Mot. at 6:2-8.)

As seen above, the cases do not involve the same parties as Defendant AMAAD Institute is the only party common to both actions. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a)(1).) 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).) Each case arises out of each Plaintiff’s separate employment with Defendant and their specific experiences during that employment. As noted by Plaintiffs in opposition, the cases involve different alleged protected complaints. Plaintiff Bender asserts claims based upon the contention she is an hourly employee entitled to overtime pay and had a contract not to have her employment terminated without good cause, claims that are not at issue in the Argueta action. The overlap between the two cases primarily arises from the Plaintiffs’ common employer, but each case will involve determinations regarding the application of the law to the facts specific to each Plaintiff. The individual issues of law and fact predominate and the cases are not likely to result in a substantial duplication of judicial resources within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a)(4).

The Court declines to relate to the two cases at issue.

Defendant also cites Code of Civil Procedure section 404.1. (Mot. at 6:9-15, 7:6-15.) However, this statute governs the coordination of cases pending in different superior courts and is therefore inapplicable to a motion to relate two cases pending in the same superior court.

The Court shall not relate the cases identified by Defendant and the motion is DENIED.