Case Number: BC623450 Hearing Date: May 22, 2018 Dept: J

Re: Jane Doe CR v. Irwindale Police Department, et al. (BC623450 R/T BC578440 and BC660422)

MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION OF CASES

Moving Party: Plaintiff Jane Doe CR

Respondents: Defendant City of Irwindale (erroneously sued as The City of Irwindale, and including Irwindale Police Department erroneously sued as a separate entity)

POS: Moving OK; Opposing OK

Case No. BC578440

Plaintiff alleges that she was a minor child and an Explorer in Learning for Life, Inc.’s police officer program, when she was sexually molested by Daniel Camerano (“Camerano”), an Irwindale police officer and her police explorer officer. The complaint was filed on 4/10/15. On 10/22/15, this case was transferred to this courtroom from Department 98 (personal injury hub). The First Amended Complaint, filed 3/15/16, asserts causes of action therein against Defendants Irwindale Police Department (“IPD”), The City of Irwindale (“City”), Camerano, Learning for Life, Inc. (“Learning for Life”) and DOES 1-100 for:

Damages

Childhood Sexual Abuse

On 8/17/16, the court related this case to Case No. BC623450; Case No. BC578440 was designated the lead case. On 2/9/17, the court granted Learning for Life’s motion for summary judgment. On 5/10/17, plaintiff dismissed City and IPD with prejudice. On 5/24/17, judgment was filed. On 5/30/17, the court related this case and Case No. BC623450 to Case No. BC660422; Case No. BC578440 was designated the lead case.

Case No. BC623450

Plaintiff alleges that she was sexually abused as a minor by her Irwindale Police Explorer Advisor Deputy Daniel Camerano (“Camerano”). The complaint was filed on 6/13/16. On 8/17/16, the court related this case to Case No. BC578440; Case No. BC578440 was designated the lead case. On 9/19/16, this action was transferred from the personal injury hub (Department 91) to this courtroom. On 11/8/16, Camerano’s default was entered.

The First Amended Complaint, filed 1/30/17, asserts causes of action therein against Defendants Irwindale Police Department, The City of Irwindale, Camerano, Learning for Life, Inc. (“Learning for Life”), and DOES 1-100 for:

Damages

Childhood Sexual Abuse

On 5/30/17, the court related this case and Case No. BC578440 to Case No. BC660422; Case No. BC578440 was designated the lead case.

On 5/4/18, plaintiff filed a “Notice of Partial Settlement” with respect to Learning for Life. A Final Status Conference is set for 8/1/18. The jury trial is set for 8/14/18.

Plaintiff Jane Doe CR (“plaintiff”) now moves the court for an order consolidating Case Nos. BC623450 and BC660422 for trial, per CCP § 1048(a).

CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT (“CRC”) RULE 3.350:

“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…and (C) Be filed in each case sought to be consolidated.” California Rules of Court Rule 3.350(a)(1). Plaintiff Jane Doe CR has not complied with the above subsections and is admonished. Notwithstanding these deficiencies, the court will address on the merits of this motion.

The court denied plaintiff’s previous motion to consolidate on 8/23/17. Plaintiff contends that reconsideration is warranted at this point pursuant to CCP § 1008(b), which provides, in relevant part, that “[a] party who originally made an application for an order which was refused in whole or part, or granted conditionally or on terms, may make a subsequent application for the same order upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, in which case it shall be shown by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown…”

Plaintiff’s counsel attests that her client’s previous motion to consolidate was denied without prejudice on 8/23/17 because the court “held the cases were in a substantially different procedural posture as Jane Doe CR had trial set and Jane Doe CV and Jane Doe CA’s action was not yet at issue.” (Kiehl Decl., ¶ 5). Kiehl further notes that “Defendant Daniel Camerano had not yet been defaulted in the Jane Doe CV and Jane Doe CA action as he had in the Jane Doe CR action.” (Id.). Kiehl contends that there are “changed circumstances” under CCP § 1008(b) because “[n]ow, each case shares the same procedural posture” and because Camerano has been defaulted in Case No. BC660422.

The court determines that neither of the foregoing constitutes “changed circumstances” under CCP § 1008(b) warranting reconsideration of its 8/23/17 ruling. Neither the tentative ruling nor the minute order from the 8/23/17 indicate that the prior motion to consolidate was denied “without prejudice.” Further, the motion was not denied because Camerano had not been defaulted in Case No. BC660422, nor because the cases were in different procedural postures; rather, the tentative ruling, which the court adopted as its order, expressly states that “[t]he court finds that the potential for prejudice to the defendants outweighs any benefits of consolidation here; as City states, ‘[c]onsolidation of these two cases…risks confusing a jury and/or leading a jury to inappropriately assume if the alleged abuse happened to one plaintiff, it happened to all plaintiffs.’ (Opposition, 4:22-24). Consolidation for trial is denied.”

The motion is denied.