John Doe vs Santa Barbara Unified School District

Case Number

21CV01542

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 10/11/2023 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion to Consolidate on Shortened Time

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff John Doe by John Taylor; Natalie Weatherford 

Defendant Santa Barbara Unified School District by Harry Harrison, Adrian Gragas

Issue

This is a Motion to Consolidate on shortened time.

Ruling

The Motion to Consolidate is DENIED.

The Motion

Summarized; Plaintiffs John Doe (lead case no. 21CV01542) John Doe 2 (related case no. 22CV01055) and John Doe 3 (related case no. 22CV01608) (“Plaintiffs”) move for an Order Consolidating the Related Cases for Trial pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 1048(a) on the following grounds:

1. Plaintiffs’ cases have been deemed related and consolidated for purposes of discovery. Through discovery it has become apparent that judicial economy and efficiency will be

served by consolidating the three cases for trial.  

2. Consolidating the three cases for trial will not cause a significant increase in the length

of the trial. Plaintiffs and Defendant SBUSD agree that the consolidated trial could be completed within the time set aside by the Court for the trial on November 20, 2023.

3. This is a simple, straightforward sexual abuse case, involving three victims of

childhood sexual abuse by the same perpetrator, Justin Sell. The three cases arise from identical liability facts, allege identical causes of action against the same Defendant, and request identical categories of damages. Conducting separate trials for each Plaintiff would be inefficient and would needlessly waste the time and resources of the Court and the jurors as follows:

a. Conducting three trials separately would require three large jury panels, three rounds of voir dire, three opening statements, three duplicative cases in chief, three closing arguments, and three jury deliberations – all at a substantial inconvenience to the Court.

b. The liability facts and witnesses are nearly identical in each case. Plaintiffs’

percipient liability witnesses would be required to testify three separate times, in three separate trials and would largely provide duplicative testimony in each trial. These witnesses include officers and detectives from the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department, current and former SBUSD employees and former SBUSD students.

c. The three Plaintiffs would be required to testify in three separate trials in front of three separate juries about their childhood sexual abuse. The Plaintiffs each have liability testimony that is relevant in each trial.  Additionally, Plaintiff John Doe’s parents would be required to testify three separate times, as they are important percipient witnesses related to liability in each case.

d.  Expert witnesses, including Plaintiffs’ three retained experts and Defendant’s two retained experts are identical in each case and would be required to come to court on three occasions and testify in three trials. 

Supported by Points and Authorities. “When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1048.  Consolidation of cases under this section rests within the sound discretion of the trial judge.  Walker v. Walker (App. 2 Dist. 1960) 177 Cal.App.2d 89.

Opposition

Summarized: Consolidation is unnecessary to efficient handling of the matters, since the cases are related and discovery was streamlined; the cases do present some commonalities (the same Defendant and similar factual backgrounds), Does make distinct allegations; this is not a simple, straightforward sexual abuse case, involving three victims of childhood sexual abuse by the same perpetrator, Justin Sell.

The reality is these cases cannot be adjudicated by the determination of the same or substantially “identical” questions of law or fact, as Plaintiffs so claim; had these cases been so intertwined such that consolidation was or is appropriate or required as suggested by Plaintiffs, why then did Plaintiffs’ counsel file three separate actions in April 2021, March 2022, and April 2022? 

To prevail, each Plaintiff must individually prove that SBUSD was negligent in its supervision of him and that such negligence was the proximate cause of his injuries.     

Damages must also be individually proven and assessed by the jury as to each Plaintiff.    Joining the actions would make the trial extremely complex and confusing, particularly given that Sell’s alleged abuse of each plaintiff varies in nature, location, and time, such that alleged acts of Sell’s abuse toward one plaintiff is irrelevant to the alleged toward the other plaintiffs.

If the Subject Actions are tried together, the jury will necessarily be presented with evidence of alleged abuse that occurred to each of the Plaintiffs, notwithstanding the unique nature of each of their claims; in going down this path, a jury will be required to make liability and damages determinations undeniably distinct to each Plaintiff and will be doing so after hearing evidence of wholly irrelevant allegations and defenses applicable to the other Plaintiffs.

This conflation of issues will likely skew determinations regarding liability, and it will also likely result in inflated damages awards should liability be found. The negative impact on the defense would be unavoidable, even with appropriate limiting instructions.

Whether SBUSD is liable depends on an individualized inquiry into the particular facts surrounding each of these three sets of allegations. Each Plaintiff will have to prove to a jury completely separate allegations of liability on the part SBUSD.

SBUSD’s alleged conduct as it directed toward each Plaintiff is based upon wholly separate acts, separated by time and even awareness during the pertinent time period.   

Plaintiffs suggest there is a risk of inconsistent rulings on pretrial motions, but any such risk, if there is one, is certainly not a ground for consolidation. These cases have stood on their own since their filing, presenting their own unique facts and circumstances rendering each appropriate for determination on its own merits. To the extent rulings from one matter are appropriate for consideration in one of the other matters, counsel and the Court are certainly equipped to address the same and afford those rulings the appropriate consideration.

Reply

Summarized; Does allege identical negligence causes of action against District arising from the negligent conduct of the same District employees in their supervision of their employee, Justin Sell, and the supervision of the students entrusted into their care, Does; Does negligence claims against District cover the same time period: the date of Justin Sell’s hiring by District (2005) through the date of Sell’s “resignation” from District (June 2011) and through the following year where District allowed Sell to return to the school and further harass and abuse Doe (2012).  Within that seven-year time period there are approximately 10-20 distinct notice events that evidence District’s negligence in their supervision and retention of Sell. These 10-20 notice events are relevant and admissible in each trial. Each trial will be focused on that same seven-year period, and the 10-20 notice events, which will constitute the vast majority of Does’ case in chief. If the cases are not consolidated, that seven-year period, and the 10-20 notice events will be recreated for a jury three separate times, with all the witnesses having to appear in court and testify about the same events three separate times.

The grooming, harassment and stalking experienced by each Doe was nearly identical. Some of Does’ sexual abuse was different, however the description of the specific sexual abuse (groping of genitals, masturbation, oral copulation, and anal penetration) will only constitute a very small portion of the trial. Does request identical categories of damages: non-economic damages related to emotional suffering, all using the same retained expert witnesses.

District has not admitted liability in this case and District contends that certain abuse incidents as to each Doe did not occur or occurred in a manner different than how Doe describes. An essential element of Does’ case will be proving that the abuse did, in fact, occur. Sell’s abuse and grooming of multiple victims is relevant pursuant to Evidence Code sections 1101(b) and 1105 and for purposes of potential impeachment.

Consolidation was not sought prior to this date because discovery was ongoing and the facts supporting consolidation developed over time. Through discovery it became apparent that the interests of judicial economy weigh heavily in favor of consolidating the cases for trial pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 1048 (a).

The cases involve identical causes of action, identical questions of fact, identical liability witnesses, identical retained and non-retained expert witnesses, the same defendant, and the same perpetrator. Consolidation will not significantly increase the length of the trial.     

The consolidated trial can be completed within the trial dates provided by the Court, commencing on November 20, 2023.

The Court’s Conclusions

District’s arguments are persuasive; the request should be denied. The proposed consolidation would only serve to confuse the issues presented in each matter, including the required, distinct determinations of liability, causation, and damages. The consolidation would result in undue, significant prejudice to District and adversely affect its right to fair trials in each of these separately pursued cases. Convenience and judicial economy are outweighed by the likelihood of prejudice.