Friends of the Carpinteria Salt Marsh vs California Coastal Commission

for 1 start date], we would call in 800 potential jurors [2 panels for 2 start dates]. Additionally, that does not consider that there are vast numbers of potential jurors who request deferrals after the panels get to the courtroom because so many folks do not get enough paid-for-jury-duty-time-off from their employers, or are students, or professionals, or a variety of excuses. The fact is -- 2 trials is a serious inconvenience to potential jurors and the Jury Commissioner's Office.

Additionally, there is a very real delay in jury selection. Typically, the jury panels come over - usually two - one in the morning and one in the afternoon. In this trial we might need three panels because there will be few potential jurors who can give the time demanded. Court administration and courtroom time is very important these days because so many people want to try their case. There is also the issue of inconvenience and time allotment for the lawyers, clients, Judge, and courtroom staff in finding 36 days to try 2 cases instead of 18 days to try 1 case.

Defendants also give little credit to the jurors who will serve. We get a very high level of educated and retired UCSB, Westmont College, and Santa Barabara Junior College educators who make up the jury that is impaneled, especially in such long cases. The jurors will readily be able to make the distinctions called for in their case. Although it is not routine it is not rocket science either.

Defendant gives little credit to the lawyers on the case. There are experienced lawyers on the case who will have ample opportunity in their Mini-opening Statement, their Opening Statement and in their Closing Argument, to make the distinctions that must be made here.

Defendants rely primarily on generalized claims of "jury confusion" and prejudice arising from Berger's sexual harassment allegations. That argument is insufficient. Employment actions frequently involve multiple overlapping FEHA discrimination, retaliation, accommodation, and harassment claims arising from the same workplace environment despite differing factual circumstances. Jurors are routinely tasked with evaluating 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: Friends of the Carpinteria Salt Marsh vs California Coastal Commission Tentative Ruling: Friends of the Carpinteria Salt Marsh vs California Coastal Commission Case Number

Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time