MLF DOES #1-5 v. State of California, et al.

Legal Standard

If a case shares common questions of fact or law with cases already coordinated under Code of Civil Procedure section 404, the parties may ask that the coordination trial judge include that case in the coordinated proceedings. This request can be made by the court's own motion, by any

JCCP5276: CDCR Women's Facilities Cases 06/26/2026 Hearing on Petition to Coordinate Add-On Case (JCCP) (Case No. 25CV028146 MLF Doe#1-5 Plaintiffs vs. State of CA) in Department 8B

party (with a supporting affidavit showing the case meets the requirements of Section 404.1), or by all plaintiffs or all defendants together (also with a supporting affidavit). The coordination judge will then decide whether to include the case based on the standards in Section 404.1. (Code Civ. Proc. (“CCP”), § 404.4; CRC rule 3.544.)

Section 404.1 provides that 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 “will promote the ends of justice taking into account whether the common questions 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.” (CCP, § 404.1.)

Analysis

Applying the criteria set forth in rule 3.400(b) of the California Rules of Court, this action is likely to involve: (1) numerous pretrial motions raising difficult or novel legal issues that will be time-consuming to resolve; (2) management of a substantial amount of documentary evidence; and, (3) management of a large number of separately represented parties. Accordingly, the Court affirms its designation as complex.

The Court has reviewed the Parties’ petition, the Court’s July 11, 2023 Order granting the initial petition to coordinate, and this Court’s prior orders granting petitions to add-on cases. The additional complaint arises out of the same type of incidents, including the same government entity defendants, and raises the same causes of action as those already coordinated under the coordinated proceeding. (Stipulated Petition, pp. 3:2-15, 5:4-8.) Moreover, the additional case is in the early stages of litigation, and no responses have been filed. (Id., pp. 3:15-17, 5:26-27.)

This Court has not yet determined that the coordinated cases share common questions. However, coordination may still be appropriate notwithstanding a lack of commonality. (See McGhan Medical Corp. v. Superior Court (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 804, 811-814 and Ford Motor Warranty Cases (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 626, 645.) Moreover, “the coordination statutes and rules expressly contemplate add-on cases. Unless there is some distinction between the coordinated and add-on cases, there is no basis for a coordination trial judge's refusal to add cases to the coordination proceeding. (Ford Motor Warranty Cases, supra, 11 Cal.App.5th at p. 626.)

No such distinction is apparent at this time. That said, the Court notes that a coordinating judge has the authority to sever unique cases at appropriate stages. Thus, the rules permit: “the coordination trial judge to order any issue or defense tried separately; order hearings conducted at various sites in the state to provide convenience to witnesses, parties and counsel; prescribe all manner of pretrial discovery devices designed to aid the litigation; sever cases or claims and transfer them back to

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

JCCP5276: CDCR Women's Facilities Cases 06/26/2026 Hearing on Petition to Coordinate Add-On Case (JCCP) (Case No. 25CV028146 MLF Doe#1-5 Plaintiffs vs. State of CA) in Department 8B

their original venue; and try specific issues separately.” (Ford Motor Warranty Cases, supra, 11 Cal.App.5th 626, 644-645, internal citations to McGhan omitted.)

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Parties’ petition. The Court orders the following case to be coordinated into JCCP 5276:

Case Name County Case Number Filing Date MLF DOES #1-5 v. State of California, et Sacramento 25CV028146 11-21-2025 al.

This case includes the following plaintiffs: (1) MLF DOE M.C. 1; (2) MLF DOE R.D. 2; (3) MLF DOE E.T. 3; (4) MLF DOE K.C. 4; and (5) MLF DOE A.R.

5.

JCCP 5276 is designated as the lead case and for good cause shown, is assigned to Judge Lauri A. Damrell, for all purposes.

All further proceedings in the above-listed action are stayed and all hearings previously set are vacated. All future filings pertaining to the newly coordinated action shall be filed using the lead case number and title.

Petitioners shall promptly serve this order pursuant to California Rules of Court rules 3.529 and 3.544.

To request oral argument on this matter, you must call Department 8B at (916) 874-5762 by 4:00 p.m., the court day before this hearing and notification of oral argument must be made to the opposing party/counsel. If no call is made, the tentative ruling becomes the order of the court. (Local Rule 1.06.)

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government Code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website. Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore.

If you are not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list, a Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) must be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge. The signed form must be filed with the clerk prior to the hearing.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

JCCP5276: CDCR Women's Facilities Cases 06/26/2026 Hearing on Petition to Coordinate Add-On Case (JCCP) (Case No. 25CV028146 MLF Doe#1-5 Plaintiffs vs. State of CA) in Department 8B

If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211). The form must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the hearing is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

If oral argument is requested, the Parties are encouraged to appear via Zoom with the links below:

To join by Zoom link - https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16184738886 To join by phone dial (833) 568-8864 ID 16184738886

Moving Counsel is directed to notice all parties of this order.

Please note that the Complex Civil Case Department now provides information to assist you in managing your complex case on the Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/divisions/civil/complex-civil-cases. The Court strongly encourages parties to review this website regularly to stay abreast of the most recent complex civil case procedures. Please refer to the website before directly contacting the Court Clerk for information.