Poole v. Twin Hill Acquisition Company, Inc.

Defendant did not bring the motion within a reasonable time of the filing of the cases. The cases were filed in 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020. The parties and the Court have committed to resolving the claims of the plaintiffs in these California cases in this California court. It would not be equitable at this stage of the cases to require the plaintiffs to prosecute their cases in other jurisdictions.

MOTION OF DEFENDANT TO SEVER CASES FOR TRIAL

Motion of Defendant to sever cases for trial under CCP 379.5 is DENIED. (Res # 752251585006) RG17876798: Poole VS Twin Hill Acquisition Company, Inc. 06/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss filed by Twin Hill Acquisition Company, Inc. (Defendant) CRS# 119008727279 in Department 21 Twin Hill has participated in setting the structure for the First, Second, and Third Bellwether Trials. Twin Hills agreed that the First and Second Bellwether Trials would each have multiple plaintiffs in a single trial. Twin Hills participated in setting the structure for the Third Bellwether trial with six plaintiffs. Given the nature of the evidence and the issues, even if the Court severs the parties for trial, evidence of other conduct will likely be admissible under Evidence Code 1101(b). Twin Hills has not shown good cause to change that trial structure by severing the plaintiffs for individual trials.

MOTION OF DEFENDANT TO DISMISS BASED ON NON-COMPLIANCE WITH DISCOVERY

The motion of defendant to dismiss based on non-compliance with discovery is GRANTED IN PART. (Res # 696684076561)

BACKGROUND

In February 2025, Twin Hill served discovery on all plaintiffs. Nine months later, at the 11/12/25 CMC Court ordered that the remaining Plaintiffs were to complete production by 2/28/26. At the 12/17/25 CMC, the Court stated that the Texas Bellwether Plaintiffs must complete production by 1/30/26. At the 3/6/26 CMC, the Court permitted non-responding Plaintiffs an additional 30 days before Defendant filed a motion. The CMC minutes of 3/6/26 state: “As to non-responsive Plaintiffs, the parties may pursue appropriate remedies, and Defendant may bring motions to dismiss or motions for sanctions.” On 4/14/26, Twin Hill filed this motion seeking dismissal of the plaintiffs who have failed to comply with the Court’s orders on discovery.

LEGAL STANDARD

Twin Hills seeks dismissal under CCP 2023.010(d) and (g) and 2023.030(d). The Court may order a terminating sanction and dismiss a case where a party has demonstrated that it will not comply with their discovery obligations. Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481, 488, states: “A prerequisite to the imposition of the dismissal sanction is that the party has wilfully failed to comply with a court order” and “Appellants were aware of the potential consequences of violating the court's order and, in light of their continued defiance of discovery and the court order, “repeated warnings would have been futile.”

Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 262, 279–280, states: “A decision to order terminating sanctions should not be made lightly. But where a violation is willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and the evidence shows that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules, the trial court is justified in imposing the ultimate sanction. Here the record is replete with evidence of Dr. Mileikowsky's failures to answer discovery requests despite numerous extensions sought and granted. Time and again, he refused to respond despite the issuance of court orders and monetary sanctions. Only the threat of terminating sanctions caused responses to be

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

RG17876798: Poole VS Twin Hill Acquisition Company, Inc. 06/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss filed by Twin Hill Acquisition Company, Inc. (Defendant) CRS# 119008727279 in Department 21

Twin Hills also seeks dismissal under the Court’s general authority under 583.150. The Court is managing a complex multi-plaintiff case that has over 400 plaintiffs and is functionally a coordinated proceeding under CCP 404. The Court cannot manage the case effectively unless the parties provide discovery as ordered so that the entire case can move forward towards resolution. (Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Superior Court (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 695, 704 [“The Judicial Council could not have intended rule [3.400] to stand like an unarmed sentry warning courts of impending disaster from complex litigation while leaving them powerless to take the steps necessary to meet the onslaught”].) (See also Del Junco v. Hufnagel (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 789, 799–800 [dismissing defendant where she “showed no interest in taking part in the case or in following orders of the court”].)

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY.

Twin Hill seeks to dismiss thirty plaintiffs for noncompliance with discovery obligations. They are: Rosana Chastain, Joanne Chino-Maloney, Valentina Ciardi, Carol Cosme, Joni Fields, Robin Frachey, Frank Gentry, Rhonda Grambusch, Terri Hegwald, Laurie Jurotich, Eileen Larkin, Rebecca Lesieutre, Celia McCarthy, Sheila Mike, Shirley Mok, Meredith Neill, Laurie Niedomys, Janice Pollock, John Ricketts, Steven Robertson, Ana Victoria Robinette, Thomas Sheridan, Elaine Silveira, Michele Slayton, Michael Smutz, Dazelle Steele, Francine Waskowicz, Amanda Whitehouse-Duckett, and Samantha Wilbur.

The motion is GRANTED for Rosana Chastain, Valentina Ciardi, Carol Cosme, Joni Fields, Frank Gentry, Terri Hegwald, Laurie Jurotich, Eileen Larkin, Rebecca Lesieutre, Celia McCarthy, Sheila Mike, Shirley Mok, Meredith Neill, Laurie Niedomys, Janice Pollock, John Ricketts, Steven Robertson, Ana Victoria Robinette, Elaine Silveira, Michele Slayton, Dazelle Steele, Amanda Whitehouse-Duckett, and Samantha Wilbur.

These Plaintiffs have not produced discovery as required by the Court’s orders. In February and March 2026, counsel for plaintiffs sent “warning letters” to these plaintiffs. (Loftus Brewer Dec at para 6.) On 4/14/26 defendant Twin Hills filed this motion and these plaintiffs did not produce discovery after being expressly informed that Twin Hill was seeking dismissal based on their failure to produce discovery. The continued failure to provide responses after repeated orders and extensions supports an inference that these plaintiffs are intentionally and willfully not responding to the Court ordered discovery.

The Court order of 12/4/25 stated: “By February 17, 2025, plaintiffs’ counsel shall serve on defendants a list of individual plaintiffs who, having been named in one of the seven actions, have confirmed after this date that they are prosecuting their claims.” In response to that order, counsel for Plaintiffs stated that the following plaintiffs were nonresponsive: Rhonda Grambusch, Rosell Miranda, Betty Segovia, Laurie Jurotich, John Ricketts, Dazelle Steele, and Samantha Wilbur. That is additional cause for dismissing those plaintiffs.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

RG17876798: Poole VS Twin Hill Acquisition Company, Inc. 06/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss filed by Twin Hill Acquisition Company, Inc. (Defendant) CRS# 119008727279 in Department 21

The motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for Carol Freeman, Michael Smutz, and Joanne Chino-Maloney. These Plaintiffs are deceased. Counsel for plaintiff has produced successor in interest declarations indicating that the successor in interest intends to continue prosecution of the claims. Twin Hill agreed to continue the Motion for 90 days as to the three deceased Plaintiffs for whom successor declarations have been provided. The Court does not continue the motion. Twin Hill may file a renewed motion in 90 days if these plaintiffs have not responded to the required discovery.

The motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for Rhonda Grambusch, Francine Waskowicz, and Robin Frachey. These Plaintiffs are deceased. Counsel for plaintiff has stated they are communicating with representatives of the deceased and that efforts are being made to have an executor or administrator who can prosecute the claims of the deceased. Twin Hill may file a renewed motion in 90 days if these plaintiffs have not responded to the required discovery.

The motion is GRANTED for Thomas Sheridan. This Plaintiff is deceased. No legally authorized representative has appeared, no substitution has occurred, and no compliant discovery responses have been served. A statement that the deceased’s aunt has a potential interest in continuing the lawsuit is not a sufficient basis to continue the claims of the decedent.

The Couret ORDERS that the claims of the identified plaintiffs are dismissed. The cases are at least seven years old, that the discovery was served in January 2025, the Court has set repeated deadlines, the case is a mass-plaintiff case where the Court must actively manage the case, and the discovery failures of one plaintiff have a cascading effect on the case as a whole.

PLEASE NOTE: This tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if uncontested by 04:00pm the day before your hearing. If you wish to contest the tentative ruling, then both notify opposing counsel directly and the court at the eCourt portal found on the court’s website: www.alameda.courts.ca.gov.

If you have contested the tentative ruling or your tentative ruling reads, “parties to appear,” please use the following link to access your hearing at the appropriate date and time: https://alameda-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/department21. If no party has contested the tentative ruling, then no appearance is necessary.