Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 24STCV16844, Date: 2025-01-23 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCV16844 Hearing Date: January 23, 2025 Dept: 45
Jesus zuniga v. roadrunner
transportation services, inc. et al.
MOTION to transfer and consolidate
Date of Hearing: January 23, 2025 Trial Date: None set
Department: 45 Case
No.: 24STCV16844
Moving Party: Defendant
Roadrunner Transportation Services, Inc.
Responding Party: Plaintiff Jesus Zuniga
BACKGROUND
This is an employment misclassification
case involving plaintiff Jesus Zuniga (“Plaintiff” or “Zuniga”), a former truck
driver for defendant Roadrunner Transportation Services, Inc. (“defendant” or
“Roadrunner”), who was improperly classified and paid as an independent
contractor. By misclassifying plaintiff, Roadrunner denied him overtime pay,
meal and rest breaks, accurate wage statements, and other protections mandated
by the California Labor Code. On July 8, 2024, Plaintiff Zuniga filed a
complaint in the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles seeking
declaratory relief for willful misclassification, and alleging: (1) failure to
pay overtime; (2) failure to pay earned wages; (3) waiting time penalties; (4)
inaccurate wage statements; (5) failure to provide meal and rest periods; and
(6) unlawful business practices in violation of Business & Professions Code
sections 17200, et seq. (See generally Complaint; Declaration of
Joseph J. Kim (“Kim Decl.”) ¶ 2.)
Roadrunner now seeks to consolidate
this case with two other cases. On September 20, 2024, Roadrunner filed a
Notice of Related Case in each action. (Kim Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. C-E.)
The additional cases are Joe Lopez
v. Roadrunner Transportation Services, Inc., Case No. 24STCV22832 (the “Lopez
Action”), pending in the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, and Eric
Carcamo v. Roadrunner Transportation Services, Inc., Case No. CVRI2403863
(the “Carcamo Action”), pending in the Superior Court for the County of
Riverside. The Carcamo Action is pending in Riverside because Carcamo
worked out of Roadrunner’s facility in Mira Loma, whereas Zuniga and Lopez
worked out of a separate facility in the City of Commerce.
[Tentative] Ruling
The Motion to consolidate is
DENIED without prejudice.
LEGAL
STANDARD
CCP section 403 provides the following:
A judge may, on motion, transfer an action or actions from
another court to that judge’s court for coordination with an action involving a
common question of fact or law within the meaning of Section 404. The
motion shall be supported by a declaration stating facts showing that the
actions meet the standards specified in Section 404.1, are not complex as
defined by the Judicial Council and that the moving party has made a good faith
effort to obtain agreement to the transfer from all parties to each action.
Notice of the motion shall be served on all parties to each action and on each
court in which an action is pending. Any party to that action may file
papers opposing the motion within the time permitted by rule of the Judicial
Council. The court to which a case is transferred may order the cases
consolidated for trial pursuant to Section 1048 without any further motion or
hearing.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 403.)
In deciding whether to coordinate actions, the Court must
take into account whether (1) the common question of fact or law is
predominating and significant to the litigation; (2) the convenience of
parties, witnesses, and counsel; (3) the relative development of the actions
and the work product of counsel; (4) the efficient utilization of judicial
facilities and manpower; (5) the calendar of the courts; (6) the disadvantages
of duplicative and inconsistent rulings, orders, or judgments; and (7) the likelihood
of settlement of the actions without further litigation should coordination be
denied. (Code Civ. Proc., § 404.1.)
“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.” (Estate of Baker (1982) 131
Cal.App.3d 471, 485 [citation omitted].) “A consolidation of actions does not
affect the rights of the parties.” (Ibid.) Consolidation does not
require identical causes of action in each case, absolute identity of the
parties, or identical allegations. (Ibid.) Where common issues are
present in two cases then consolidation is appropriate. (Todd-Stenberg v.
Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 976, 978-79.)
Los Angeles County Court Rules, Rule 3.3(g)(1) provides that
“[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 in a single
department, or if the cases were already assigned to that department.”
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff seeks to transfer and
consolidate Joe Lopez v. Roadrunner Transportation Services,
Inc., Case No. 24STCV22832, pending in the Superior Court for the County of Los
Angeles, and Eric Carcamo v. Roadrunner Transportation Services, Inc.,
Case No. CVRI2403863, pending in the Superior Court for the County of Riverside
with this action.
The Motion for Consolidation is
procedurally deficient for a number of reasons. To transfer cases between
different counties, a party must seek a coordination proceeding as described by
the JCCP. Defendant has not complied
with those rules, nor is that application properly made to a trial court. With respect to defendant’s request to
consolidate the two actions currently pending in the Mosk Courthouse, the
motion is premature because the cases have not yet been deemed related. Once the cases are deemed related, defendant
may move to consolidate those two actions into a single action. A motion to
consolidate two or more cases may only 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.” (Super.
Ct. L.A. County, Local Rules, rule 3.3(g)(1).)
Accordingly, the Motion to
consolidate is DENIED without prejudice.
The court will deem the following two matters related: 24STCV22832 and
24STCV16844. 24STCV16844 is the lead
case. The court sets both cases for
Case Management on March 13, 2025 at 8:30 a.m.
CONCLUSION
The Motion to Consolidate is
DENIED without prejudice.
Moving Party to give notice.