Judge Theresa M. Traber, Case Number: 23STCV05100, Date: 2023-12-15 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 23STCV05100, Date: 2023-12-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV05100 Hearing Date: January 12, 2024 Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE: January 12, 2024 TRIAL DATE: NOT SET

CASE: Rebecca Kadel v. Operational Technical Services, LLC et al.; Halen Kadel v. Operational Technical Services, LLC et al. ; Myranda McCurdy v. Operational Technical Services, LLC et al.;

CASE NO.: 23STCV05100; 23STCV08810; 23STCV08820

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE FOR TRIAL PURPOSES

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Operational Technical Services, LLC and Operational Technical Services, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No response on eCourt as of 01/11/24

CASE HISTORY:

· 02/07/23: Complaint filed [23STCV05100]

· 04/20/23: Complaint filed. [23STCV08810]

· 04/20/23: Complaint filed [23STCV08820]

· 08/29/23: Cases deemed related; 23STCV05100 designated as lead case.

· 01/08/24: Cross-Complaint filed [23STCV05100]

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

These are wage and hour actions. Plaintiffs allege that they were misclassified as exempt employees and paid a salary rather than hourly wages, and thus were deprived of overtime, minimum wages, indemnification for business expenses, wage and hour statements, and meal and rest periods.

Defendants move to consolidate all three actions for trial.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants’ Motion to Consolidate Rebecca Kadel (23STCV05100), Halen Kadel (23STCV08810), and McCurdy (23STCV08820) is GRANTED.

This order is to be filed in all three cases that have been consolidated for trial: Rebecca Kadel, Halen Kadel, and McCurdy. All documents filed in the consolidated cases after the date of this order must include the caption and case number of the lead case, Rebecca Kadel, followed by the case numbers of all the other consolidated cases. (Rule 3.350(d).)

DISCUSSION:

Defendants move to consolidate all three actions for trial.

Legal Standard for Consolidation

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.

(Code Civ. Proc. § 1048(a), bold emphasis added.)

Procedural Requirements

A motion to consolidate must satisfy the requirements of California Rules of Court Rule 3.350, which provides, in relevant part:

(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

(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

(Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.350(a).)

Defendants have listed the parties who have appeared in each case in the notice of motion by setting forth the names of all parties in each action and stating that they have all appeared, as required by Rule 3.350(a)(1)(A). (Notice of Motion pp. 2-3.) Defendants also have listed the names of the respective attorneys of record, as required by Rule 3.350(a)(1)(A). (Id.) Further, Defendants have included the captions of all three cases, as required by Rule 3.350(a)(1)(B). The notice of motion was filed in all three related cases, as required by Rule 3.350(a)(1)(C). Defendants also filed proofs of service stating that they served the attorneys of record for each party, as required by Rule 3.350(a)(2)(B).

The Court therefore finds that Defendants have complied with the procedural requirements for a motion to consolidate.

Consolidation of Actions for Trial

Defendants seek to consolidate all three related actions for trial purposes only.

Whether separate actions shall be consolidated for trial is a matter within the discretion of the trial court and its decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion. (Citation omitted.) . . . ‘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 omitted.)

(Estate of Baker (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 471, 485.)

Defendants contend that good cause exists to consolidate these matters for trial purposes because each of the three related actions asserts the same 11 causes of action and nearly identical factual allegations. All three cases are wage and hour actions alleging two causes of action for retaliation and claims for wrongful termination, failure to pay regular wages, minimum wages, and overtime, failure to indemnify for business expenses, failure to provide meal and rest periods and itemized wage and hour statements, and claims for waiting time penalties and unfair competition. (Declaration of Ibrahim Adwani ISO Mot. ¶¶ 3-7; see also Exhs. A-C.) As Defendants contend, the pleadings are nearly identical save for the hiring dates for each plaintiff, the alleged dates of termination, hours worked, and salary or hourly wages. (Id. ¶ 12.) Defendants contend that each case will involve the same witnesses giving similar testimony, nearly identical discovery that may be equally applicable to each action, and substantially similar if not identical defenses to each action. (Id. ¶ 14.) Defendants do not argue that complete consolidation is warranted here, because each complaint was filed by a separate plaintiff regarding separate—albeit similar—injuries. Defendants only argue that judicial economy would be better served by trying these matters together, to prevent needless duplication of evidence and procedures and to avoid the risk of inconsistent rulings. None of the Plaintiffs have opposed the motion.

Upon review of the pleadings in each case, the Court finds that judicial economy and convenience would be served by trying these matters together, and that good cause exists to consolidate these actions for trial purposes only.

CONCLUSION:

Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Consolidate Rebecca Kadel (23STCV05100), Halen Kadel (23STCV08810), and McCurdy (23STCV08820) is GRANTED.

Moving Parties to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 12, 2024 ___________________________________

Theresa M. Traber

Judge of the Superior Court

Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.