Judge Thomas D. Long, Case 19STCP01694 2023-05-23 Tentative Ruling

On May 3, 2019, Plaintiff Jorge Mata filed a verified petition against Defendants Francisco Rodriguez, Robert Miller, Albert Roman, and Los Angeles Community College District (“District”). Plaintiff sought a writ of mandate, damages for breach of contract and whistleblower retaliation, and injunctive relief. After a peremptory challenge to the first assigned judicial officer, the case was assigned to Department 86.

On March 2, 2021, Plaintiff filed Jorge Mata v. Los Angeles Community College District, et al., Case No. 21STCV08255, against Defendants Los Angeles Community College District, Francisco Rodriguez, and Ronald Delahoussaye. That action is currently assigned to Department 78. The Complaint alleges whistleblower retaliation and blacklisting, and it also seeks injunctive relief.

On March 18, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Related Case in Case No. 21STCV08255, and on April 15, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Related Case in this action.

On July 8, 2021, the Court in Department 86 found that this case and Case No. 21STCV08255 are not related, noting that “relating the cases will not promote judicial economy given that this writ department does not conduct trials concerning damages.”

On August 19, 2022, the Court denied Plaintiff’s petition for writ of mandate and transferred the matter for reassignment to an Individual Calendar courtroom for the remaining second, third, and fourth causes of action. On August 22, 2022, the case was reassigned to Department 48.

On September 19, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel represented to this Court that he intended to file a motion to relate and consolidate this case with Case No. 21STCV08255. The Court therefore set an Order to Show Cause on relation and consolidation.

On October 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed his points and authorities in support of consolidation. Defendants filed an opposition, and Plaintiff filed a reply.

At the November 22, 2022 OSCs, the Court set January 10, 2023 hearing dates for Plaintiff’s motions to relate and consolidate. The Court also stated, “Counsel is directed to file the requisite motions for relation and consolidation. No additional briefing is permitted.”

On December 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed a notice of motion to relate and consolidate, identifying the documents previously filed before the OSCs.

The Court later continued the January 10, 2023 hearings to March 2, 2023; continued the March 2, 2023 hearings to April 25, 2023; and continued the April 25, 2023 hearings to May 23, 2023.

Defendants’ Requests For Judicial Notice Nos. 1, 3-8 are denied as unnecessary because those filings are already part of this case’s record.

Defendants’ objections to Plaintiff’s Reply evidence are sustained. The Court generally will not consider new evidence submitted with a reply.¿¿(See¿Jay v. Mahaffey¿(2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1537-1538.)

On September 19, 2022, the Court set OSCs Re: Relation and Consolidation. Plaintiff’s Points and Authorities, filed on October 28, 2022, addressed only consolidation. However, under Los Angeles Superior Court Rule 3.3, subdivision (g), “[c]ases 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.” Therefore, the Court will first consider Plaintiff’s argument from the viewpoint of relation.

Cases are related if 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.

Following the resolution of Plaintiff’s writ of mandate, which precluded the cases from initially being deemed related, the remaining causes of action can be tried to a jury for determination of damages. (See 07/08/2021 Minute Order.)

The cases involve some, but not all, of the same parties, and some of the same claims and events. The petition in this action alleges that Plaintiff was employed by the District as a Chief Information Officer (“CIO”) from 2007 until September 29, 2018, when he was wrongfully demoted/reassigned. (Petition ¶ 18.) Defendant Miller signed the 60-day notice letter, and Miller, Roman, and Rodriguez made the decision to retaliate and demote Plaintiff. (Petition ¶¶ 20, 45.) The second cause of action against the District for breach of contract alleges that Plaintiff and the District had an oral contract governing his CIO position, and the District breached that contract by terminating him from the position. (Petition ¶¶ 38-39.) The third cause of action against the District alleges whistleblower retaliation under the Labor Code due to Plaintiff’s assertion of his legal rights against discrimination and harassment. (Petition ¶¶ 43-44.) The fourth cause of action against all Defendants alleges whistleblower retaliation under the Education Code due to Plaintiff’s disclosure of improper governmental activity. (Petition ¶¶ 58-59.) Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the District and require it to reinstate his employment and remove false evaluations. (Petition ¶¶ 63- 65.)

The complaint in Case No. 21STCV08255 alleges that from February 2020 to April 2020, Plaintiff has applied for other positions with the District, but he is unreasonably being ranked low among the candidates, the District is avoiding its usual hiring process, and the District is denying him the ability to apply due to false reasons. (See Complaint ¶¶ 24-35.) Plaintiff alleges that the District is retaliating due to his prior reports of illegal conduct, as alleged in his prior Petition. (Complaint ¶¶ 36-37.) The first cause of action against the District alleges whistleblower retaliation under the Labor Code, and the second cause of action against all Defendants alleges whistleblower retaliation under the Education Code. The third cause of action against the District alleges violation of the Labor Code’s anti-blacklisting law due to the defendants making false and/or disparaging statements that directly affected his application for prospective employment opportunities. (Complaint ¶ 63.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Rodriguez and Delahoussaye retaliated by unfairly and unlawfully denying Plaintiff and/or interfering with prospective employment opportunities. (Complaint ¶ 42.) There are no other specific allegations about the individual defendants.

The District and Rodriguez are defendants in both actions. Miller and Roman are not defendants in Case No. 21STCV08255, and Delahoussaye is not a defendant in this action. However, these differences are insignificant, and it is no different than a single case with multiple defendants along an extended timeline.

For similar reasons, the cases involve some of the same events and questions of fact and law. The allegations in Case No. 21STCV08255 relate to continuing conduct arising from the same underlying whistleblowing, so Plaintiff’s alleged whistleblowing is an essential event that gave rise to the claims in both cases. Whether Plaintiff is indeed a whistleblower under the Labor Code or Education Code is a shared question of law in both actions, with shared facts to establish this.

Because of the shared factual background, legal issue of retaliation following whistleblowing, and overlapping (though not fully identical) parties, the Court also finds that the cases would require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges.

Accordingly, the Court orders that this case and Case No. 21STCV08255 be deemed related, with this case as the lead case.

“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, subd. (a).) The purpose of consolidation is to enhance trial court efficiency by avoiding unnecessary duplication of evidence and the danger of inconsistent adjudications. (See Todd-Stenberg v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 976, 978-979.)

Under Los Angeles Superior Court Rule 3.3, subdivision (g), “[c]ases 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.” With the Court’s concurrent order relating the cases, the Court may now consider consolidation.

A Notice of Motion containing a list of all named parties in each case, the names of those who have appeared, and the names of their respective attorneys of record must be filed in each case sought to be consolidated. (California Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a)(1).) No compliant Notice of Motion was filed in either this case or Case No. 21STCV08255. However, the parties’ counsel in Case No. 21STCV08255 is the same counsel in this action. The parties are fully on notice of this motion through prior Orders to Show Cause and the Court’s orders.

Defendants argue that the breach of contract and retaliation (demotion) claims are unique to the first action, and the alleged blacklisting and denial of an internal application are unique to the second action. (Opposition at pp. 16-19.) However, Defendants’ contention of jury confusion and prejudice are conclusory and can be adequately addressed with a good special verdict form.

Plaintiff alleges that the retaliation in Case No. 21STCV08255 “is the result of the retaliation and discrimination previously levied against him, and ongoing discrimination and retaliation, including to ‘blacklist’ him from obtaining new employment.” (Complaint ¶ 23.) Although the two actions allege different instances of retaliation, the retaliation is alleged to be in response to the same conduct by Plaintiff. There is a risk of inconsistent factual findings regarding Plaintiff’s reporting of illegal or improper activities as a whistleblower. There would also be duplication of resources and evidence in order to prove this foundation in both cases.

Accordingly, the Court finds that consolidation will enhance efficiency, prevent duplication of evidence, and avoid inconsistent adjudications.

This action and Case No. 21STCV08255 are deemed related, and they are consolidated. This case (Case No. 19STCP01694) is the lead case.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit. Parties intending to appear are encouraged to appear remotely and should be prepared to comply with Dept. 48’s new requirement that those attending court in person wear a surgical or N95 or KN95 mask.

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court