Enzo Carlos et al vs Angela Catherine Canfield

distinct claims involving different plaintiffs, causes of action, and damages. Defendants also ignore the substantial prejudice Plaintiffs would suffer from separate trials, including increased litigation costs [court reporters]; duplicated expert expenses, which can be the highest costs at trial; repeated emotional testimony; inconsistent factual findings; inconsistent verdicts; and delay in adjudication.

The balance of prejudice weighs strongly against separate trials. Defendants seek separate trials by fragmenting what is, at its core, a unified retaliation and discrimination case arising from a common workplace culture, common decisionmakers, and overlapping retaliatory conduct.

Separate trials would require two juries to repeatedly determine: whether Paredes retaliated against employees who reported misconduct and FEHA violations; whether Avila properly handled retaliation complaints and accommodation requests; whether Defendants failed to investigate employee complaints; whether Defendants maintained lawful FEHA practices; and whether Defendants ratified retaliatory conduct by management. Those overlapping factual determinations create a substantial risk of inconsistent verdicts.

The Court concludes that separate trials will not prevent undue prejudice or conserve the Court's time and resources or allow the evidence for each Plaintiff to be presented in a clear, logical, and efficient manner as claimed by the Defendants. Separate trials will not promote a more focused evaluation of each claim and will not likely facilitate the resolution of the action. The Court will not order separate trials. Plaintiffs would be prejudiced if separate trials were ordered. The administration of justice would be prejudiced if separate trials were ordered.

Tentative Ruling: Enzo Carlos et al vs Angela Catherine Canfield Tentative Ruling: Enzo Carlos et al vs Angela Catherine Canfield Case Number

Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Wed, 06/03/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Motions to Compel Tentative Ruling Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Monica Robles. Attorneys for Defendant: Jennifer Tseng, H. Daniel Burrows, Summer Massey. Issue Motions to Compel

RULING These are two motions to compel compliance with deposition subpoenas issued to Chubb Group of Insurance Companies, and California Managed Imaging Medical Group, respectively. No opposition or other response has been filed.

Both motions attach the respective deposition subpoenas. Neither motion attaches a completed or signed proof of service as to a deposition subpoena. Both proofs of service check contradictory boxes as to the person serving, stating that the person serving the subpoena is both a registered California process server and not a registered California process server.

In the absence of proof that either deposition subpoena was served on the respective deponent, both motions are denied without prejudice. The Trial Date of 11/4/26 is confirmed.