Judge Theresa M. Traber, Case Number: 24STCV11976, Date: 2025-01-22 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 24STCV11976, Date: 2025-01-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV11976 Hearing Date: January 22, 2025 Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE: January 22, 2025 TRIAL DATE: NOT SET

CASE: Jane J.G. Doe, et al. v. Los Angeles Unified School District; Jane D.R. Doe v. Los Angeles Unified School District

CASE NO.: 24STCV11967 [lead case] related with 24STCV20851

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Jane J.G. Doe; Jane K.R. Doe; John J.G. Doe; John S.R. Doe; Jane J.A. Doe; and Jane T.D. Doe,

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District

CASE HISTORY:

· 05/13/24: Complaint filed [lead case]

· 07/12/24: Request for Dismissal as to Defendant Mark Berndt [lead case].

· 08/16/24: Complaint filed [related case].

· 11/14/24: Cases deemed related.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

These are a pair of childhood sexual abuse actions. Plaintiffs are former students in the Los Angeles Unified School District who were sexually abused by now-dismissed Defendant Mark Berndt, who was convicted and incarcerated for the abuse. Plaintiffs allege that the Los Angeles Unified School District ignored or concealed the abuse until it was independently discovered.

Plaintiffs move to consolidate this action with the related action Jane D.R. Doe v. Los Angeles Unified School District, LASC Case No. 24STCV20851 for all purposes.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Consolidation is GRANTED.

The action Jane D.R. Doe v. Los Angeles Unified School District, LASC Case No. 24STCV20851 is consolidated with this action for all purposes. This action shall be designated the lead case.

DISCUSSION:

Plaintiffs move to consolidate this action with the related action Jane D.R. Doe v. Los Angeles Unified School District, LASC Case No. 24STCV20851 for all purposes.

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).)

Although Plaintiffs set forth each non-dismissed party and counsel in the Notice of Motion, Plaintiffs do not specify whether the parties listed have appeared in each case in the notice of motion, as required by Rule 3.350(a)(1)(A). That said, the Court observes that Defendant Berndt has been dismissed from the lead case as of July 12, 2024, and that Defendant LAUSD filed a demurrer in the lead case on July 2 and an answer in the related case on October 8, 2024.

Plaintiffs have also set forth the full captions of both cases, as required by Rule 3.350(a)(1)(B). However, the notice of motion was not filed in the related action, as required by Rule 3.350(a)(1)(C).

As both sets of Plaintiffs and Defendants share the same respective counsels of record, Plaintiffs, by serving Defendant’s counsel in this case, have served the attorneys of record for each party, as required by Rule 3.350(a)(2)(B), and included a proof of service as required by subdivision (C). Moreover, although Plaintiffs have not strictly complied with the procedural requirements of a motion to consolidate, Defendant has not objected to the motion for procedural deficiencies or lack of notice. The Court therefore finds that Plaintiffs have given fair notice of this motion and will consider the motion on its merits.

Consolidation of Actions for All Purposes

Plaintiffs seek to consolidate these two childhood sexual abuse actions for all purposes.

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.)

Plaintiffs contend that consolidation of these matters for all purposes is appropriate because the cases concern a common course of conduct, similar claims, and substantially similar legal and factual issues. The Complaint in this action alleges that Berndt sexually abused the Plaintiffs between the 2003 and 2009 school years. (See Complaint ¶ 49.) The Complaint in the related action alleges that Berndt engaged in similar conduct as to the Plaintiff in that action during the 2004 and 2005 school years—i.e., during the same period as this action. (See Complaint [related case] ¶ 44.) Defendant does not oppose consolidating this action for “case management and discovery” (Opposition p.2:3-4) but contends that consolidation for trial is “premature.” Defendant asserts that, because each of the seven Plaintiffs were students at different times, not all claims are relevant to each Plaintiff, and, of more importance on this motion, not all claims in this action are relevant to claims in the other action. For example, Defendant argues that notice events occurring in 2008 and 2009 alleged in this action are not relevant to the claims in the related action, which alleges misconduct between 2004 and 2005. (See Complaint [related action] ¶ 44(a)(i).) Defendant also argues that some of the Plaintiffs, including the related action, allege abuse as part of the after-school program rather than in Berndt’s class. (Complaint ¶ 49(c)(i); Complaint [related action] ¶ 44(a)(i).) Defendant thus contends that the two Complaints raise different issues with respect to access and supervision, and, therefore, that the potential complexity of the two cases militate against consolidation for trial at this juncture.

The Court is not persuaded by Defendant’s position. First, Defendant’s argument regarding the complexity of the two cases misconstrues the issues. Although the Complaint in the related action does not allege an identical set of facts as the universe of allegations asserted in the instant Complaint, Defendant’s own argument demonstrates that the Complaint in the related action aligns with a subset of the claims already asserted in this case. For example, both complaints allege abuse as part of the after-school program, and allege abuse occurring between 2004 and 2005. (See Complaint ¶¶ 49(c)-(e); Complaint [Related Action] ¶ 44.) Thus, consolidation of the related action into this action would not appear to create substantially more complexity than already exists. Moreover, as Plaintiffs argue in reply, consolidation for all purposes except trial is not a valid form of consolidation. (Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1127, 1147 [the two types of consolidation are consolidation for trial only or consolidation for all purposes].)

On this record, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have demonstrated the existence of common questions of law and fact such that consolidation for all purposes is warranted. In so finding, the Court does not reject the possibility that subsequent developments will warrant severance of certain issues or a partitioned trial, and this ruling is therefore without prejudice to any motion for such relief.

CONCLUSION:

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Consolidation is GRANTED.

The action Jane D.R. Doe v. Los Angeles Unified School District, LASC Case No. 24STCV20851 is consolidated with this action for all purposes. This action shall be designated the lead action.

Moving Parties to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 22, 2025 ___________________________________

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.