TELMA YOMARI FLORES GONZALEZ VS CM LAUNDRY LLC

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC545854    Hearing Date: September 21, 2020    Dept: 73

9/21/20

Dept. 73

Rafael Ongkeko, Judge presiding

FLORES GONZALEZ vs. CM LAUNDRY, LLC and related cross-action (BC545854)

Counsel for Cross-complainant/moving party CM Laundry, LLC: Browne George Ross LLP (Peter Ross; Tyler King)

Counsel for interested non-parties: Law Offices of Henry Jannol, APC (Rebecca Wester)

Matter:

Cross-complainant CM Laundry, LLC’s Ex Parte Application to File Notice of Related Case (filed 9/18/20)

Tentative ruling

The court has read and considered CM Laundry, LLC’s ex parte application.

Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application to File Notice of Related Case is granted. The court finds that CM Laundry was adjudged a judgment creditor in this matter and remains a party for electronic filing purposes. Its earlier attempted filing of the Notice of Related Case, as described in counsel’s declaration, should have been accepted for this court’s consideration.

Although the usual ex parte grounds under CRC 3.1202(c) do not exist (no immediate harm, etc.), the court accepts the filing at this time to avoid any further delays. The court GRANTS CM Laundry’s ex parte application and will accept the filing of the Notice of Related Case in BC545854 and deem it filed as of this date. It has not been served on other named parties in BC545854. However, all other parties were either dismissed or defaulted. The court also finds that service of the Notice has been previously made in the pending Glendale case (19GDCP00341) and those parties do not oppose this application. There is no other party requiring service of the Notice under CRC 3.300(d).

Turning to the merits of the Notice of Related Case, after applying the factors enumerated in CRC 3.300 and Local Rule 3.3(f), the court finds that the cases are not related.

This case started as a wage and hour case against CM Laundry, LLC that was eventually dismissed when the named plaintiff failed to prosecute her complaint. This action proceeded under CM Laundry, LLC’s cross-complaint against several parties alleging various business tort claims. More than 4 years ago, on 6/24/16 CM Laundry, LLC obtained a default judgment against only one cross-defendant, Classic Laundry and Finishing, Inc. All other cross-defendants were dismissed.

On 8/15/19 CM Laundry, LLC filed a separate action in the Glendale case (19GDCP00341) and now seeks to relate that case with BC545854. Antonio Valadez and Hermelinda Rendon are named as the individual defendants in the Glendale case. Neither was a party in this action nor does the record reflect that either voluntarily appeared for any purpose. CM Laundry, LLC’s Glendale action asserts Valadez and Rendon should be liable for the Classic Laundry judgment it obtained in this case pursuant to alter ego theories.

While CM Laundry is the plaintiff in each case, the defendants are not the same. Further, the court finds CM Laundry’s claims in each case are neither the same nor are they similar. While certain underlying facts overlap, alter ego issues were not part of BC545854 and neither Valadez nor Rendon was named in this case. This case went to judgment based on Classic Laundry’s default. No significant efficiencies would be achieved by relating the actions. Thus, the court finds the issues in the Glendale case are unlikely to require substantial duplication of judicial resources or a danger of inconsistent rulings if heard in different courts.

No party will be prejudiced as a result of this ruling. There is nothing automatic about relating different cases for post-judgment alter ego determinations. Until just recently it was the court’s practice to assign post-judgment matters in unlimited civil cases for hearing in different courts (at Mosk, Dept. 44 handled such matters until its recent closure during the pandemic). The court exercises its discretion in not relating the cases.

Unless waived, notice of ruling by moving party.