SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

Coordination Proceeding
Special Title (Rule 3.550)

ARRIAGA AND ASSOCIATES
WAGE AND HOUR CASES
JUDICIAL COUNCIL COORDINATION PROCEEDING NO. 4980

TENTATIVE RULING RE: PETITION FOR COORDINATION

The above-entitled action comes on for hearing before the Honorable Thomas E. Kuhnle on October 26, 2018, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 5. The Court now issues its tentative ruling as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION

Petitioners Louis Arriaga and Arriaga & Associates, Inc. (collectively, “Petitioners”) seek an order coordinating the cases of Giron, et al. v. Arriaga, et al., Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC667718, Arriaga, et al. v. Lara, et al., Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, Case No. 17CV310003, and Jordan v. Arriaga & Associates, et al., Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, Case No. 18CV325541.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

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.)

III. DISCUSSION

Two of the cases for which coordination is sought arise out of alleged Labor Code violations – Giron, et al. v. Arriaga, et al. and Jordan v. Arriaga & Associates, et al. The third case – Arriaga, et al. v. Lara, et al. – involves allegations that the defendants tried to steal away business from the plaintiff and start a competing security services business.

Petitioners contend coordination is appropriate for the following reasons: (1) the claims arise from alleged violations of the California Labor Code statutes and wage and hour regulations; (2) there are multiple actions pending in both Los Angeles County and Santa Clara County; (3) two of the cases are class actions; (4) in the Los Angeles County case, the judge ordered Petitioner to submit a petition for coordination to avoid duplication of the court’s and the parties’ time and effort; (5) one of the cases, Jordan v. Arriaga & Associates, et al., has been deemed “complex”; and (6) discovery has not yet commenced in any of the cases.

The petition for coordination is unopposed. The cases 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. The coordinated cases will be venued in Santa Clara County.

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