Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: BC665798, Date: 2023-03-02 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: BC665798 Hearing Date: March 2, 2023 Dept: 1
BC665798 CONSUMER
ADVOCACY GROUP INC VS GEL SPICE COMPANY INC
Plaintiff Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc.’s Motion to
Relate Cases
TENTATIVE RULING: The Motion to Relate Cases is
DENIED.
On July 10,
2019, Plaintiff Consumer Advocacy Group filed the instant Proposition 65
enforcement action against Viva Bargain Center, Inc., Viva Bargain Center
Vermont, and Gel Spice Company, Inc.
On January
19, 2021, Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint asserting claims against
Gel Spice Company, Inc., Gel Spice,
Inc., Gel Spice Co., LLC, Big Lots Stores, Inc., Big Lots, Inc., Grocery
Outlet, Inc., Consolidated Property Holdings, Inc., Target Corporation, Target
Stores, Inc., and Target Brands, Inc. alleging containers of ground cinnamon,
cumin, sage, cloves, poultry seasoning, garlic, and turmeric contained
impermissible levels of lead.
Motion
On February
2, 2023, Plaintiff Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc. filed the instant motion to
relate its “Spice Cases” filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court. As stated in Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion,
Plaintiff seeks to relate the following cases:
a. CAG v. Gel
Spice Co. Inc., et al. (LASC Case No. BC665798)
b. CAG v.
Valu Mart. Co./Soofer Co. (LASC Case No. BC679776)
c. CAG v.
Vitacost.com, Inc., Badia, Amazon (LASC Case No. 21STCV08004)
d. CAG v.
Kroger (II), Mave [Seasnax] (LASC Case No. 20STCV27047)
e. CAG v.
Baja Ranch Supermarket (LASC Case No. 19STCV23642)
f. CAG v. Tak
Shing (LASC Case No. 20STCV32672)
g. CAG v.
Badia/ Ross (LASC Case No. 19STCV38610)
h. CAG v. Tak
Shing, et al (LASC Case No. 22STCV03580)
i. CAG v.
Bolsabuy (LASC Case No. 21STCV46801)
j. CAG v.
Mojave Foods Corporation, et al. (LASC Case No. 19STCV39211)
k.
[Consolidated with CAG v. Mojave Foods Corporation (LASC Case No.
20STCV23202)]
l. CAG v. TJX
Companies, Inc. (LASC Case No. 22STCV20457
m. CAG v. AA
Market Place, LLC, LASC Case No. 22STCV21441
n. CAG v. vs
Food Land Market LASC Case No. 19STCV18754 [Consolidated
with
19STCV35730 and 20STCV40297]
o. CAG v. v.
Williams-Sonoma, Inc., et al. (LASC Case No. 19STLC08619)
p. CAG v. v.
Green Farm Market (LASC Case No. 20STCV15823) Dept. 48
q. CAG v. Posharp Stores, et al (LASC
Case No. 22STCV03471) Dept. 14
Opposition
In
opposition, Defendants Badia Spices, Inc. and E&T Foods, Inc. contend Plaintiff’s
motion is untimely, Plaintiff failed to adequately explain its delay in filing
the Notice of Related Case, relating the cases would cause prejudice and delay,
and the cases are not related on any of the grounds enumerated in Rule 3.300.
Reply
In reply, Plaintiff
contends it followed the correct procedure under the relevant rules to seek
relation of the cases, its request is timely, and relating the cases will
promote judicial efficiency.
Motion to Relate Cases
The Motion is Timely
In their
opposition, Defendants contend the motion is untimely. (Opp. at 9:12-11:5.)
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. . . . The motion
must be served on each party in every case listed in the Notice of Related
Cases, with proof of service attached.” (See also Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(h)(1)(D).) This
motion is expressly permitted by Rule 3.300(h)(1)(D) and is not constrained by
the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1008. Neither California
Rules of Court, rule 3.300(h)(1)(D) nor LASC Local Rule 3.3(f)(3) contain an
express time requirement for bringing a motion to relate.
Accordingly, the Court is not persuaded
by Defendants’ contention that the motion must be denied outright as untimely.
The Cases are Not Related
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).)
On December 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed a
Notice of Related Case involving the cases at issue. On January 3, 2023, Judge
Teresa A. Beaudet issued an order declining to relate BC665798, 19STCV39211,
BC679776, 19STCV18754, 19STCV23642, 19STCV38610, 20STCV23202, 20STCV27047,
20STCV32672, 21STCV08004, 21STCV46801, 22STCV03471, 22STCV03580, 22STCV20457,
22STCV21441, 19STLC08619, and 20STCV15823. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is
properly brought before Department 1. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(h)(1)(D); LASC
Local Rule 3.3(f)(3).)
Plaintiff filed the Notice of Related
Case at issue significantly after the time provided the Rules of Court. (Cal.
R. Ct. rule 3.300(e) (“The Notice of Related Case must be served and filed as
soon as possible, but no later than 15 days after the facts concerning the
existence of related cases become known.”).) While not a jurisdictional requirement,
most of the benefits of relation have been lost given the significant passage
of time and the procedural developments of the cases involved. For example, the
parties in BC665795 purport to be trial ready and submitted their long cause trial
documents for consideration. Plaintiff indicates the parties settled in
BC679776. In 19STCV23642, fact discovery closed in 2021, expert discovery is largely
complete, and trial is set for March 6, 2023. (Menger Decl. ¶ 4.) Contrary to Plaintiff’s contention, (Mot. at
17:10-25), relating the cases would likely delay resolution of the cases and
cause a significant continuance of the trial dates and hearings. These factors
weigh against relation even if the cases were related on one of the grounds
enumerated in Rule 3.300(a).
Plaintiff’s motion includes a chart
containing the case name, the defendants, and the spices and non-spices at
issue in each case. (Mot. at 9-11.) As the chart demonstrates and argued by
Defendants, the cases do not involve the same parties. Plaintiff is the only
common party to each case. While the cases involve the same general legal theories
based upon Proposition 65, they do not involve the same claims as the cases
involve different products, from spices to seafood to wallets. (Cal. R. Ct.,
rule 3.300(a)(1).) Plaintiff’s attempt to generally categorize the cases as all
involving “spices” allegedly contaminated with “heavy metals” is not
persuasive. The cases involve different spices and/or non-spices, from
different manufacturers and/or retailers, containing different alleged
contaminants.
Similarly, the cases 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
manufacturer, distributor, or retailer’s distribution of the specific products
at issue containing specific alleged concentrations of the alleged contaminants.
For example, the only spice at issue in 21STCV08004, 19STCV23642, and
20STCV15823 is ground ginger, which his not at issue in BC665798 and many of
the other cases. The only spice at issue in 19STCV39211 is ground oregano,
which is not at issue in BC665798 and many of the other cases. Plaintiff’s
chart details the significant variances among the cases. (Mot. at 9:3-11:17.)
Plaintiff also contends the cases will
require a substantial duplication of judicial resources if the cases are heard
by different judges. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a)(4).) However, the fact that
Plaintiff has chosen some of the same experts does not demonstrate there will
be a substantial duplication of judicial resources. Plaintiff’s claimed overlap
in the proposed testimony regarding exposure is not sufficient to relate the
cases at issue. As argued by Defendants, there are numerous other issues that
are specific to each defendant and each product that predominate. Contrary to
Plaintiff’s suggestion in reply, the cases involve significantly more
dissimilarities in the arguments, evidence, and experts than “differences to
account for service sizes.” (Reply at 9:4-5.) Plaintiff’s stated desire to save
its own costs, (Mot. at 15:22-25), is not material to the question of whether
cases should be related. The cases will not require a substantial duplication
of judicial resources if heard by different judges.
The Court shall not relate the cases
identified by Plaintiff and the motion is DENIED.