Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 22STCV30804, Date: 2025-02-25 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV30804 Hearing Date: February 25, 2025 Dept: 45
IAN SAWREY V. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
Date of Hearing: 02/25/25 Trial Date: 05/19/25
Department: 45 Case
No.: 21STCV10123
Moving Party: Plaintiffs Ian Sawrey et al. all cases
consolidated under LASC Case No. 22STCV30804
Responding
Party: Defendant
Los Angeles Unified School District
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Ian Sawrey, John Doe 7067,
James Bunch, and Dion Nizzi (collectively, “Moving Plaintiffs”) were allegedly sexually
assaulted by their teacher, Defendant Gary Paul Letherer (“Letherer”), while
they were minor students enrolled at Toland Way Elementary School within
Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District (“LAUSD”) from approximately 1973
to 1977. Plaintiff G.M. was also allegedly sexually assaulted by Letherer from
approximately 1971-1973 at Toland Way Elementary School.
The first of the Moving Plaintiffs, Ian
Sawrey initiated his lawsuit on September 20, 2022, in Los Angeles County
Superior Court. The case was assigned for all purposes to Judge Theresa Traber
in Department 47. On December 30, 2022, the Court issued an Order of Related
Cases for the Sawrey action, the John Doe 7067 Action (No.
22STCV35391), and the James Eric Bunch, et al. Action (No. 22STCV39153).
All three cases were transferred to Judge Theresa Traber in Department 47 for
all purposes. On November 14, 2023, all three cases were consolidated for all
purposes including trial. On June 7, 20254, the Court found that the following
cases, 21STCV10123 and 22STCV30804, are related within the meaning of
California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a). 21STCV10123 is the lead case. For
good cause shown, said cases are assigned to Judge Mel Red Recana in Department
45 at Stanley Mosk Courthouse for all purposes. (06/07/24 Minute Order.) As of
January 3, 2025, the case was reassigned to Judge Virginia Keeny.
Plaintiff G.M. filed his action on
March 15, 2021. The case was initially assigned to
the Personal Injury (PI) Court. On July
28, 2022, the case was reassigned to an independent calendar court, for all
purposes, to Judge Mel Red Recana in Department 45. On June 18, 2024, the Court
set the current trial date of May 19, 2025. On May 20, 2024, Moving Plaintiffs
filed a Notice of Related Case with regard to Plaintiff G.M.’s case, and on May
28, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Related Case with regard to Moving
Plaintiffs’ consolidated case. On June 7, 2024, this Court found the cases
related with Plaintiff G.M.’s case deemed the lead case. Accordingly, the
Moving Plaintiffs’ case was reassigned
to Judge Mel Red Recana in Department
45 for all purposes.
On January 13, 2025, Plaintiffs filed
the instant motion seeking the consolidation of Ian Sawrey v. LAUSD et al.,
LASC Case No. 22STCV30804 (filed September 20,
2022) (previously consolidated with John
Doe 7067 v. LAUSD, et al., LASC Case No. 22STCV35391 (filed November 4,
2022), and James Eric Bunch, et al. v. DOE 1, et al., LASC
Case No. 22STCV39153 (filed December 16, 2022)); and G.M. v. LAUSD, LASC
Case No. 21STCV10123.
On February 10, 2025, Defendant LAUSD
filed an opposition.
On February 18, 2025, Plaintiffs filed
their reply.
[Tentative] Ruling
The Court GRANTS
the Motion to Consolidate.
LEGAL
STANDARD
Section 1048(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure permits
consolidation of separate cases
involving common questions of law and fact that are pending
before the same court. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1048(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.”¿ (Code
Civ. Proc. § 1048(a).)¿
The purpose of consolidation is to enhance trial court
efficiency and to avoid inconsistent adjudications. (See Todd-Stenberg v.
Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust, supra, 48 Cal App.4th at 978- 979.) The
Court may consolidate actions in its sole discretion as long as: (1) there are
common questions of law and fact; (2) economy and convenience would be served
by a joint trial; and (3) there is no prejudice to a substantial right. (See Jud
Whitehead Heater Co. v. Obler (1952) 111 Cal.App.2d 861, 867; see also Cal.
Rules of Court, rule 3.300, subd. (a) [defining related cases as involving “the
same parties and are based on the same or similar claims;” arising “from the
same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring
the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or
fact;” or “[a]re likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication of
judicial resources if heard by different judges.”].) The decision to grant or
deny a motion to consolidate rests solely in the sound discretion of the Court.
(Fellner v. Steinbaum (1955) 132 Cal.App.2d, 509, 511.)
ANALYSIS
Parties’ Arguments
Plaintiffs argue that consolidation is appropriate because both cases involve
the alleged sexual assault of minors, all students of LAUSD at Toland Way
Elementary School in a similar manner, over the same time period of 1971 to
1977, by the same perpetrator, LAUSD’s employee and teacher Gary Paul Letherer.
(Mot. to Consolidate at p. 12.) Moreover, all cases assert the same causes of
action of negligence and negligent supervision and retention of Letherer against
Defendant LAUSD. (Id. at p.13.) Also, all cases are before the same
judge after being ordered related, therefore, consolidation would enhance trial
efficiency, avoid inconsistent ruling, and advance the convenience of the
parties, witnesses, and counsel. (Id.) Lastly, Plaintiffs argue that
Defendants will not suffer prejudice due to consolidation because the cases
involve nearly identical legal issues as to institutional liability, common
questions of fact, same witnesses, and evidence. (Id. at p. 14.)
In opposition, Defendant acknowledges
that Plaintiffs’ claims present some commonalities, including the same
defendant, same alleged perpetrator, and modus operandi. (Opp. at p.1.) However,
Defendant also argues that each Plaintiff has a distinct legal action involving
individualized issues bearing on liability, causation, and damages. (Id.)
Specifically, Defendant argues that no evidence exists that the sexual abuse of
each plaintiff by Letherer
overlaps, or that each plaintiff was sexually abused at the same time or on the
same occasion by Letherer. (Id. at p.5.) Moreover, the alleged sexual
abuse in each case occurred at different times, on separate occasions, during
different school years spanning a 6-year period. (Id.) Defendant further
argues that consolidation would prejudice LAUSD because Plaintiffs’ testimony—of
sexual assault committed against minors—will undoubtedly be emotionally
persuasive to the jury and the jury will be confused as to notice issues as to
each Plaintiff. (Id. at p.8.) LAUSD further argues that a combined trial
would cause a jury to award higher damages than supported by evidence and allow
Plaintiffs to enter inadmissible evidence. (Id. at p.9.) LAUSD requests
that all five cases should be severed and adjudicated separately. (Id.
at p. 10.)
In reply, Plaintiffs reiterates
that all cases share common questions of law and fact, which permits
consolidation of the separate cases. (Reply at p.2.) Plaintiffs further note
that LAUSD’s contention that consolidation will increase the potential to
confuse the jury on issues of damages can be easily addressed through motions
in limine and/or instructions to the jury. (Id.) Moreover, Plaintiffs
argue that LAUSD’s concern regarding the admissibility of evidence can also be
easily addressed through motions in limine and/or limiting instructions to the
jury. (Id.)
Common
Questions of Law and Fact
There are
common questions of law and fact between all cases. Moving
Plaintiffs were allegedly sexually assaulted by their teacher, Defendant
Letherer, while they were minor students enrolled at Toland Way Elementary
School within Defendant LAUSD from approximately 1973 to 1977. (Sawrey
First Amended Complaint
22STCV30804 at ¶¶ 1,3, 20; Doe 7067 First Amended Complaint at ¶¶
1,5,13-49; Bunch First Amended Complaint at ¶¶ 1-2,7,14-49.)
Plaintiff G.M. was also sexually assaulted by Letherer from
approximately 1971-1973 at Toland Way Elementary School. (G.M. First Amended
Complaint ¶¶ 1,3-4,9-24.) Moreover, all
cases assert the same causes of action of negligence and negligent supervision
and retention against Defendant LAUSD. (Phan Decl. ¶ 7.) Although the Court
notes that the alleged abuse took place from a span of six years, all of the
claims against LAUSD arise from the same related transaction, which was the
negligent hiring and supervision of Leatherer.
The Court
finds Moe v. Anderson instructive even though joinder was disputed
rather than consolidation. (Moe
v. Anderson (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 826,
835-836.) In Moe, the Court of Appeals held that although the lawsuit
arose from separate incidents of sexual assault as to the alleged perpetrator,
the claims arose from the same series of transactions or occurrences which was
the negligent hiring and supervision as to the defendant employer. (Id. at 828) Here, LAUSD is the defendant employer who hired Letherer
during the alleged sexual assaults and therefore all cases relate to the same
series of transactions or occurrences.
Therefore,
there are common questions of law and fact between all cases.
Economy
and Convenience by Joint Trial
Consolidation will conserve
judicial resources by having one trial which will limit duplicative testimony,
pretrial proceedings, and preparation for trial. For instance, this
Court has already set these cases for trial on the same date, May 19, 2025.
Furthermore, while LAUSD declined to stipulate to consolidation for trial, it
has stipulated to consolidate for discovery, reflecting the substantial overlap
of these cases and the efficiency gained by treating them alike at least for
discovery. (Phan Decl. ¶ 9.)
No
Prejudice to a Substantial Right
LAUSD failed to show prejudice to
a substantial right because its arguments are purely speculative. For instance,
LAUSD states “[i]f a jury is allowed to see all five cases and finds LAUSD at
fault on one case, the jury may feel compelled to provide an award to all five
plaintiffs out of sympathy, unsupported by the evidence.” (emphasis added.) (Opp.
at p. 10.) LAUSD also argues “in a combined trial, the jury may be tempted to award higher damages than supported by the evidence.”
(emphasis added.) (Id. at p. 9.) LAUSD further argues “[t]here is no way
to avoid the extensive confusion and undue prejudice that would result, to the
detriment of LAUSD. Given the anticipated manner in which Plaintiffs’ counsel
will try the case, the jury is unlikely to
understand discrete notice issues or even
care what LAUSD did or didn’t do in any specific year in conjunction with each
of the individuals plaintiff’s claims.” (emphasis added.) (Id. at p. 8.) The Court notes that these arguments are conclusory and
speculative.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS
the Motion to Consolidate.