This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/14/2020 at 08:50:50 (UTC).

RICHARD GALVAN VS DENNIS CORRIGAN

Case Summary

On 04/25/2018 RICHARD GALVAN filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against DENNIS CORRIGAN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are STEPHANIE M. BOWICK, DEBRE K. WEINTRAUB and DEBRE KATZ WEINTRAUB. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****3891

  • Filing Date:

    04/25/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

STEPHANIE M. BOWICK

DEBRE K. WEINTRAUB

DEBRE KATZ WEINTRAUB

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

GALVAN RICHARD

Defendants and Respondents

CORRIGAN DENNID

DOES 1-100

CORRIGAN DENNIS

PIPKIN JOHN

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

RIVA KEVIN R.

Attorney at Law Offices of Kevin R. Riva

3055 Wislshire Boulevard, Suite 900

Los Angeles, CA 90010

SHEGERIAN CARNEY RICHARD

SHEGERIAN CARNEY R.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

KRISSMAN JAROD A. ESQ.

Attorney at STOLPMAN, DRISSMAN, ELBER & SILVER, LLP

444 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 940

Long Beach, CA 90802

KRISSMAN JAROD ADAM ESQ.

ANDERTON D. CHAD

 

Court Documents

Case Management Order

12/19/2019: Case Management Order

Reply - REPLY MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION OF CASES

12/12/2019: Reply - REPLY MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION OF CASES

Case Management Statement

11/27/2019: Case Management Statement

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)

8/30/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)

Case Management Statement

8/8/2019: Case Management Statement

Case Management Statement

7/25/2019: Case Management Statement

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

7/2/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

6/5/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

Substitution of Attorney

5/20/2019: Substitution of Attorney

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

5/30/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

Notice of Deposit - Jury

1/29/2019: Notice of Deposit - Jury

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

9/24/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)

11/19/2018: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)

Minute Order - Minute Order (Case Management Conference)

11/19/2018: Minute Order - Minute Order (Case Management Conference)

Minute Order -

9/6/2018: Minute Order -

Minute Order -

9/13/2018: Minute Order -

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

8/21/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

SUMMONS -

4/25/2018: SUMMONS -

26 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/12/2021
  • Hearing04/12/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 24 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/30/2021
  • Hearing03/30/2021 at 09:30 AM in Department 24 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/27/2021
  • Hearing01/27/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 24 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/28/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 19; Non-Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/21/2020
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department 19; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 24; Case Management Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 24; Hearing on Motion to Consolidate - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2019
  • DocketCase Management Order; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Case Management Conference; Hearing on Motion to Consolidate)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/12/2019
  • DocketReply (MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION OF CASES); Filed by Richard Galvan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
52 More Docket Entries
  • 08/21/2018
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by Richard Galvan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/21/2018
  • DocketCASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/21/2018
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by Dennis Corrigan (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/11/2018
  • DocketDEFENDANT DENNIS CORRIGAN'S ANSWER TO PL,AJNTIFF'S COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/11/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Dennis Corrigan (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Richard Galvan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT: DAMAGES FOR ASSAULT; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC703891    Hearing Date: December 19, 2019    Dept: 24

Plaintiff Richard Galvan’s motion for consolidation is GRANTED. Case nos. BC703891 and 19STCV07689 are consolidated for all purposes. BC703891 is deemed the lead case.

This case involves two related cases filed by Plaintiff Richard Galvan (“Plaintiff” or “Galvan”). On April 25, 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant Scott Corrigan (“Corrigan”). The case number of this action is BC703891 (the “Corrigan Complaint”). The Corrigan Complaint states 4 causes of action for: 1) assault; 2) battery; 3) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and 4) negligent infliction of emotional distress. Corrigan allegedly used his fists to hit Plaintiff’s arms to make Plaintiff drop flyers he was passing out.

On March 5, 0219, Plaintiff filed a wrongful termination action against Defendants United Parcel Service (“UPS”), John Pipkin (“Pipkin”), and Corrigan. The case number this action is 19STCV076889 (the “UPS Complaint”). The UPS Complaint states 11 causes of action violation of Lab. Code § 1102.5; 2) violation of Lab. Code § 98.6; 3) wrongful termination of employment in violation of public policy; 4) intentional infliction of emotional distress; 5) violation of Civ. Code § 51.7; 6) assault; 7) battery; 8) negligent hiring, supervision, and retention; 9) breach of express oral contract; 10) breach of implied in fact contract; and 11) violation of Lab. Code § 6310. Pipkin and Corrigan are alleged to be UPS supervisors. Plaintiff was hired by UPS in 1986, and at the time of his termination he drove feeder trucks. Plaintiff alleges a variety of grievances and wrongful acts against UPS ranging back from 2007, including alleging their involvement in Corrigan’s assault/battery on UPS property in September 2016. Plaintiff alleges that he was wrongfully terminated in retaliation of his numerous internal complaints over the years in January 2017.

On July 18, 2019, the actions were related and assigned to Department 24.

On August 30, 2019, the Court sustained Corrigan’s plea in abatement demurrer against the fourth, sixth, and seventh causes of action of the UPS Complaint. The Court found that abatement for the causes against Corrigan was appropriate due to the identical nature of the causes of action between the suits.

The instant motion requests consolidation of the actions. On August 16, 2019, Plaintiff filed the motion to consolidate the actions. On December 6, 2019, Defendants filed an opposition. On December 12, 2019, Plaintiff filed a reply.

Legal Standard

The trial court is authorized to consolidate pending “actions involving a common question of law or fact…,” so as to “avoid unnecessary costs or delay.” (CCP § 1048(a).) The decision to consolidate pending actions is a matter wholly committed to the trial court’s discretion. (Nat’l Elec. Supply Co. v. Mt. Diablo Unified Sch. Dist. (1960) 187 Cal. App. 2d 418, 421.) LASC Local Rule 3.3(g)(1) further directs that consolidation cannot occur until “[a] motion to consolidate two or more cases [is] 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.”

Under California Rules of Court Rule 3.350(a)(1), 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; (B) Contain the captions of all the cases sought to be consolidated, with the lowest numbered case shown first; and (C) Be filed in each case sought to be consolidated. (2) The motion to consolidate: (A) Is deemed a single motion for the purpose of determining the appropriate filing fee, but memorandums, declarations, and other supporting papers must be filed only in the lowest numbered case; (B) Must be served on all attorneys of record and all non-represented parties in all of the cases sought to be consolidated; and (C) Must have a proof of service filed as part of the motion. Under Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.350(b), “[u]nless otherwise provided in the order granting the motion to consolidate, the lowest numbered case in the consolidated case in the lead case.”

Discussion

First, Plaintiff’s notice of motion fails to list all named parties in each case, the names of those who have appeared, and the names of their respective attorneys of record. (CRC Rule 3.350(a)(1)(A).) Second, the notice of motion was also not filed in each case. Plaintiff failed to file the notice in the later-filed suit. (CRC Rule 3.350(a)(1)(C).) However, given that all Defendants filed a substantive opposition and did not object to these notice defects, Defendants have waived their objections to the notice issues. Further, the purpose of the CRC Rules has been satisfied, since all parties and their attorneys of record have notice of the consolidation.

Here, the two actions clearly share substantial issues of law and fact. In fact, the entirety of the Corrigan complaint is essentially identical and re-stated in the fourth, sixth, seventh and eighth causes of action. They truly involve identical issues of law and fact, with additional issues concerning UPS’s vicarious liability for Corrigan’s alleged assault. According to the allegations, UPS is liable because it was Corrigan’s employer and he was allegedly acting within the scope of employment, rendering UPS vicariously liable for the battery. While UPS may dispute their liability, the issues and law and fact are clearly intertwined. Consolidation of the cases would therefore promote judicial efficiency.

Defendants object for prejudice they might suffer because of consolidation. Defendants argue that this would undermine the principles of abatement. With this argument, Defendants fail to identify any substantive prejudice they might suffer from consolidation. Consolidation would not affect any substantive right in this instance. Consolidation would not even affect the previously sustained plea in abatement granted in favor of Corrigan. Defendants provide no reasoned explanation how consolidation would “undermine” abatement. Of course, consolidation and abatement are not mutually exclusive, and Defendants cite no authority that one would even affect the other. The simple fact is that any prejudice Defendants identify related to defending against the assault allegations stems from being sued, rather than consolidation. UPS/Pipkin still have defend against the causes of action stated in the UPS complaint, even if consolidation were denied. While the later-filed case includes additional issues concerning the wrongful termination/retaliation causes of action, Plaintiff uses the assault as a part of the wrongful employment practices that form the basis of other employment related causes of action. (See UPS Complaint ¶¶ 2, 11(v)-(w).)

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to consolidate is GRANTED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.