SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

RAUL LAGUNA, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated employees,

Plaintiff,

vs.

GOLDEN STATE OVERNIGHT DELIVERY SERVICE, INC., a California corporation; COPAN EXPRESS, INC., a California corporation; JUAN F. PERDOMO, a individual; and DOES 1-10, inclusive,

Defendants.

JUDICIAL COUNCIL COORDINATION PROCEEDING NO. 5049

TENTATIVE RULING RE: PETITION FOR COORDINATION

The above-entitled action comes on for hearing before the Honorable Thomas E. Kuhnle on August 16, 2019, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 5. The Court now issues its tentative ruling as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION
II.
Plaintiff Raul Laguna (“Plaintiff”) petitions for an order coordinating the cases of Laguna v. Golden State Overnight Delivery Service, Inc., Case No. 2019-1-CV-343326, Santa Clara County Superior Court, and Avendano v. GC Delivery Services, LLC and Golden State Overnight Delivery Service, Inc., Case No. 19STCV04971, Los Angeles County Superior Court. Plaintiff requests a stay of Avendano pending a determination as to whether coordination is appropriate. The petition for coordination is opposed by defendant Golden State Overnight Delivery Service, Inc. (“Golden State”).

III. LEGAL STANDARD
IV.
When civil actions sharing a common question of fact or law are pending in different courts, a petition for coordination may be submitted to the Chairperson of the Judicial Council, by the presiding judge of any such court, or by any party to one of the actions after obtaining permission from the presiding judge, or by all of the parties plaintiff or defendant in any such action. A petition for coordination, or a motion for permission to submit a petition, shall be supported by a declaration stating facts showing that the actions are complex, as defined by the Judicial Council and that the actions meet the standards specified in Section 404.1. On receipt of a petition for coordination, the Chairperson of the Judicial Council may assign a judge to determine whether the actions are complex, and if so, whether coordination of the actions is appropriate, or the Chairperson of the Judicial Council may authorize the presiding judge of a court to assign the matter to judicial officers of the court to make the determination in the same manner as assignments are made in other civil cases.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 404.)

Coordination of civil actions sharing a common question of fact or law is appropriate if one judge hearing all of the actions for all purposes in a selected site or sites will promote the ends of justice taking into account whether the common question of fact or law is predominating and significant to the litigation; the convenience of parties, witnesses, and counsel; the relative development of the actions and the work product of counsel; the efficient utilization of judicial facilities and manpower; the calendar of the courts; the disadvantages of duplicative and inconsistent rulings, orders, or judgments; and, the likelihood of settlement of the actions without further litigation should coordination be denied.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 404.1.)

V. DISCUSSION
VI.
In an order filed on July 3, 2019, the Chief Justice authorized the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, County of Santa Clara, to assign this coordination motion to a judge of the court. In an order filed on July 8, 2019, the Presiding Judge assigned the coordination motion to this court. Later on July 8, 2019, this court scheduled the hearing on the petition.

Plaintiff asserts both of the cases are putative wage and hour class actions. Laguna is also a PAGA action. The actions concern the misclassification of courier drivers as independent contractors. Plaintiff states the allegations in the two cases are largely identical, except that Laguna contains a PAGA cause of action and Avendano does not.

Plaintiff contends the cases should be coordinated because common questions of law and fact are central to the actions, which both stem from a theory of independent contractor misclassification and unlawful piece-rate pay. Plaintiff argues both cases are in the early stage of litigation and settlement is unlikely absent coordination because there are additional defendants in each case that are not common to the other case. Plaintiff asserts the cases should be coordinated in Santa Clara County Superior Court because many of the attorneys, parties, and witnesses are located in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Golden State opposes coordination. It asserts its counsel informed Plaintiff’s counsel on May 30, 2019, that Golden State anticipated filing a motion to abate and/or stay as to Laguna. On June 6, 2019, with no prior notice to Golden State, Plaintiff served Golden State with the Court’s order staying Laguna as well as Plaintiff’s coordination petition.

Golden State argues the coordination petition is premature and should be denied while Golden State’s motion to abate is heard. Golden State argues further that even if Laguna is not abated, coordination will not promote the efficient use of resources because there are too many individual issues for either Laguna or Avendano. Golden State contends that, if the petition for coordination is granted, the coordination should occur in Los Angeles because two of the three counsel for Golden State are located in Los Angeles.

The fact that Golden State believes Laguna should be abated has no bearing on whether coordination is appropriate; only the factors set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 404.1 matter. Moreover, Golden State itself acknowledges it can still seek abatement even if coordination occurs. (Defendant Golden State Overnight Delivery Service, Inc.’s Opposition to Petition for Coordination, p. 4:22-23.)

Laguna and Avendano involve overlapping parties and issues. The Court finds the cases should be coordinated to avoid duplication of effort and the potential of inconsistent rulings. Accordingly, the petition for coordination is GRANTED and the cases will be coordinated in Santa Clara County Superior Court.

As a final matter, the Court notes Avendano has filed a non-opposition to the motion in which his counsel makes a request to file a consolidated complaint. This is not a consolidated action; it is a coordinated action. Consequently, there is no basis to file a consolidated complaint. The request is DENIED.

The Court will prepare the final order if this tentative ruling is not contested.