Judge Thomas D. Long, Case Number: 24STCV02800, Date: 2024-04-23 Tentative Ruling

This case was later related to fifteen other cases: 24STCV02767, 24STCV02782, 24STCV02797, 24STCV02805, 24STCV02933, 24STCV02935, 24STCV02936, 24STCV02937, 24STCV02942, 24STCV02950, 24STCV02955, 24STCV02961, 24STCV02968, 24STCV03051, and 24STCV03097.

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 Notice of Motion was filed in the related cases. However, Defendants’ counsel declares that all of the plaintiffs are represented by the same counsel, and all of the defendants are represented by the same counsel. (Kelley Decl. ¶¶ 20-21.)

Under Los Angeles Superior Court Rule 3.3, subdivision (g), “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.”

“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.)

Consolidation is not appropriate for these sixteen cases. Defendants highlight the common employer, office, supervisor, working conditions, employment letters and contracts, and employee handbook. (Motion at p. 10.) However, as Defendants acknowledge, some plaintiffs were paid hourly and some plaintiffs were paid a salary. (Motion at p. 11.) Defendants also acknowledge that the plaintiff in Case No. 24STCV02961 uniquely alleges claims for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and failure to engage in the interactive process. (Motion at p. 10, fn. 2.)

The plaintiffs “acknowledge that there exist legal questions under the same Labor Code, the same wage orders, and the same common law in each of their matters,” but each plaintiff’s case will depend on its own facts. (Opposition at p. 9.) “Moreover, each Plaintiff's claim for owed commissions necessitates a separate and detailed accounting and calculation and will rely on the testimonial evidence from distinct individuals, reflecting the difference in terms of employment and varying durations of service.” (Ibid.) The differences in facts and evidence also extend to each plaintiff’s claims for violations of overtime, meal breaks, and rest breaks. Each plaintiff “periodically” worked excess hours or was not allowed breaks, and this will be a unique calculation for each plaintiff. (See, e.g., Leinbach Complaint ¶¶ 48, 53, 59, 61.) Regardless of similar workplace policies (see Motion at p. 11), whether these policies for followed may vary between the plaintiffs—which Defendants also acknowledge. (Motion at p. 12 [“BEI acknowledges that a trial of each action would require each plaintiff to prove his/her individual damages. Such individualized proof will be necessary whether or not the Related Cases are consolidated.”].)

Given these factual differences between sixteen different plaintiffs’ employment, the Court agrees with the plaintiffs that “the consolidation would severely compromise the clarity and focus of the trial, likely leading to jury confusion.” (Opposition at p. 9.)

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit. If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court