Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 23STCV09625, Date: 2025-02-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV09625    Hearing Date: February 25, 2025    Dept: 68

Date:  2-25-25 a/f 6-10-25 (via 12-9-24 ex parte minute order)

Case #: 23STCV209625 lead case related to 24STCV15556

Trial Date: 7-14-25 c/f 4-7-25

CONSOLIDATION

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Los Angeles Dodgers, LLC, et al.

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Manuel Esparza

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Consolidate

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On April 28, 2023, and August 17, 2023, Plaintiff Manuel Esparza filed a complaint and first amended complaint, 23STCV209625, against the Los Angeles Dodgers, City of Los Angeles, and certain Los Angeles Dodger security personnel as well as a Los Angeles Police Department officer for 1. Deprivation of Civil Rights, Bane Act, Cal. Civil Code § 52.1 and Conspiracy 2. Assault 3. Battery 4. False Imprisonment 5. Negligence 6. Premises Liability 7. Deprivation of Constitutional Rights, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 8. Negligent Hiring, Retention and Supervision. Plaintiff alleges that while lawfully attending a baseball game on April 16, 2022, and waiting for his wife to use the public restroom, Plaintiff proceeded to use e-cigarette device, which led to his being “accosted” by security personnel for smoking outside a designated smoking zone. Plaintiff alleges the incident constituted excessive violence by security personnel and a function of racial profiling, due to Plaintiff’s Hispanic ethnicity.

Defendant City of Los Angeles answered the first amended complaint on September 15, 2023. The Dodgers answered on March 12, 2024. On May 14, 2024, Plaintiff dismissed the seventh cause of action for Deprivation of Constitutional Rights, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 8. On June 6, 2024, Edward Ginter, Michael Castro, Peter Verschueren, and Denise Sanchez answered the first amended complaint.

On June 18, 2024, Plaintiff Manuel Esparza, Jr. filed a complaint (24STCV15556) for 1. Deprivation of Civil Rights, Bane Act, Cal. Civil Code § 52.1 and Conspiracy 2. Assault 3. Battery 4. False Imprisonment 5. Negligence and 6. Negligent Hiring, Retention and Supervision. The subject complaint also arises from witnessing the response of Los Angeles Dodger stadium security personnel and Los Angeles Police Department safety officers use of force in response to the use of the e-cigarette device by Plaintiff’s father, Manuel Esparza (Sr.), while on the premises of Dodger Stadium on April 16, 2022.

On October 11, 2024, Defendants filed a notice of related cases. The court deemed the cases related on October 15, 2024, with the first case deemed the lead case.

RULING: Granted.

Defendants Los Angeles Dodgers, LLC, City of Los Angeles, Edward Ginter, Michael Castro, Peter Verschueren, and Denise Sanchez, move to consolidate both actions. Defendants collectively move for consolidation on grounds of a common core of facts and law from the April 16, 2022, incident, with Esparza (Sr.) the target of the enforcement action, and Esparza Jr. a witness to the altercation. Defendants also contend greater efficiency and management of judicial resources with a single action, and reduction of any potential for redundant judgment and overlapping damages. Defendants deny any prejudice to Plaintiffs.

Plaintiff Esparza (Sr.) first notes that Esparza Jr. also opposes the motion, but since no motion was filed in said related case, submits no “formal opposition” to the subject motion. (Footnote 1 one of the opposition refers to an unspecified rule in the California Rules of Court, but the court assumes Plaintiff refers to California Rules of Court, rule 3.350.) Plaintiff substantively challenges the motion on grounds of “extreme prejudice” based on a “gross misunderstanding of the nature and scope of each of the two cases and of the law,” thereby leading to a potential unfair trial delay, impairment of rights to each Plaintiff, and substantial advantage to Defendants. More specifically, Plaintiffs maintain both incidents in fact involve “two separate attacks by two different members of the Los Angeles Dodgers private security force against a father and son at two different times for different reasons.” The distinction presented as Esparza Jr. also being violently confronted upon inquiring about the confrontation with his father. Esparza Jr. was 16 years old at the time of the incident.

Defendants in reply reiterate the commonality of questions of law and fact in the two actions. Defendants cite to the order relating the cases, thereby already establishing the foundation. (Cal. Rules Ct., rule 3.300(a).) Defendants also note the lack of any dispute as to judicial economy benefits and to minimize the possibility of conflicting judgments. Defendants again deny any prejudice, including deprivation of due process rights, juror confusion, or delay.

The court reviews the procedural standard:

(a) Requirements of motion

(1) A notice of motion to consolidate must:

(A) List all named parties in each case, the names of those who have appeared, and the names of their respective attorneys of record;

(B) Contain the captions of all the cases sought to be consolidated, with the lowest numbered case shown first; and

(C) Be filed in each case sought to be consolidated.

(2) The motion to consolidate:

(A) Is deemed a single motion for the purpose of determining the appropriate filing fee, but memorandums, declarations, and other supporting papers must be filed only in the lowest numbered case;

(B) Must be served on all attorneys of record and all nonrepresented parties in all of the cases sought to be consolidated; and

(C) Must have a proof of service filed as part of the motion.

(b) Lead case

Unless otherwise provided in the order granting the motion to consolidate, the lowest numbered case in the consolidated case is the lead case.

(c) Order

An order granting or denying all or part of a motion to consolidate must be filed in each case sought to be consolidated. If the motion is granted for all purposes including trial, any subsequent document must be filed only in the lead case.

(d) Caption and case number

All documents filed in the consolidated case must include the caption and case number of the lead case, followed by the case numbers of all of the other consolidated cases.

(Cal. Rules Ct., rule 3.350.)

While Defendants in fact failed to file a notice of motion in the later filed case, the remainder of the motion was otherwise properly filed in the lead case. Given counsel represents both Plaintiffs, the court finds the technical rule violation in no way prejudices Esparza Jr.

“Code of Civil Procedure section 1048 grants discretion to the trial courts to consolidate actions involving common questions of law or fact.” (Todd-Stenberg v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 976, 978.) The section 1048 states, in relevant part:

(a) When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.

(b) The court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy, may order a separate trial of any cause of action, including a cause of action asserted in a cross-complaint, or of any separate issue or of any number of causes of action or issues, preserving the right of trial by jury required by the Constitution or a statute of this state or of the United States.

“Consolidation is not a matter of right; it rests solely within the sound discretion of the trial judge.” (Fisher v. Nash Bldg. Co. (1952) 113 Cal.App.2d 397, 402.) There are two types of consolidation under §1048: “a consolidation for purposes of trial only, where the two actions remain otherwise separate; and a complete consolidation or consolidation for all purposes, where the two actions are merged into a single proceeding under one case number and result in only one verdict or set of findings and one judgment.” (Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1127, 1147.)

The motion to consolidate arises from the common origin of all claims—the use of force on the premises of Dodger Stadium while Esparza (Sr.) was utilizing an e-cigarette device outside a designated smoking zone. Esparza Jr. was subsequently separately restrained upon inquiring about the treatment of his father.

Notwithstanding the semantic distinctions raised by Esparza Sr., a common core of facts permeates both cases—alleged mistreatment by security personnel on invitees to the premises of Dodger Stadium. While the court appreciates the situational distinctions between the two Plaintiffs, the cases also remain interrelated in that Esparza Jr. became specifically embroiled in a dispute upon reacting to the treatment of his father. The conclusions of extreme prejudice asserted by Esparza (Sr.) seem to disregard the otherwise significant factors supporting consolidation, including the common core of defendants, witnesses, common identified causes of action, and bases of sought after recovery.

“‘A consolidation of actions does not affect the rights of the parties. The purpose of consolidation is merely to promote trial convenience and economy by avoiding duplication of procedure, particularly in the proof of issues common to both actions.’ (citation).” (Estate of Baker (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 471, 485.) Separate trials with such commonalities between the cases leads to a conclusion of potential disfavored redundancy in both resources and liability. (Todd-Stenberg v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at p. 979; see Baggett v. Gates (1982) 32 Cal.3d 128, 133 (footnote 5); Jud Whitehead Heater Co. v. Obler (1952) 111 Cal.App.2d 861, 867.)

The court finds the circumstances of father and son Plaintiffs filing their separate actions for similar treatment arising from a singular moment with Esparza (Sr.), and with an otherwise significant number of conjoint factors supporting a showing of significant efficiency, lacks any showing of sufficient prejudice as a result of consolidation thereby requiring separate trials. The suggested requirement regarding a trial practice of repeatedly informing the jury of the two separate plaintiffs’ reasons for engagement with security staff, while perhaps a tactical concern, fails to rise to a level of dramatic engagement such as confusion from mistaken identification or murderous treachery. Plaintiff(s) may raise any and all such apprehensions at the time of trial.

The court finds support for consolidation into a single action, with a merger of all parties under a single case number. (Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp. (2000) 22 Cal.4th at p. 1147.) The court therefore GRANTS the motion to consolidate.

Moving Defendants shall submit an order for consolidation specifically addressing the lead case, with the oldest case, 23STCV209625, being deemed the lead case for all purposes. 

The non-lead, 24STCV15556, shall now be deemed and captioned as a cross-complaint for pre-trial purposes.  Commencing immediately, any and all documents in both cases shall now only be filed using the lead case number.  The parties shall not file any documents in case no. 24STCV15556.

All future dates in case no. 23STCV209625 shall remain on calendar.

The hearing date on the demurrer in the case ending in 15556 shall remain on calendar for 4/22/25.   The CMC in that case is advanced to this date and vacated.

However, it appears that one of the LAD Security Officer John Doe #2 has still not been served, as such, the Court also schedules an OSC re POS against the plaintiff / XC Esparza Jr. for this failure to file a proof of service for 4/22/25 at 8:30 a.m.

Defendants to give notice.