STEVEN FREDIANI VS. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA ET AL

Matter on the Law & Motion / Discovery calendar for Tuesday, July 22, 2025, Line 1 [Part 1 of 2 of the tentative ruling.] DEFENDANT PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY's Motion To Sever Plaintiffs Claims, Or In The Alternative, Separate Them For Trial.

The motion is denied as to CCP 378 and denied without prejudice in part as to relief requested under CCP 379.5. The court further grants the alternative relief of permitting defendant PG&E to file separate summary judgment and/or summary adjudication motions for each plaintiff.

"California procedural law is infused with a solicitude, if not an altogether outright preference, for the economies of scale achieved by consolidating related cases into a single, centrally managed proceeding." (Petersen v. Bank of America Corp. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 238, 248.)

CCP 378 provides that plaintiffs may join in one action if they assert a right to relief in a "series of transactions or occurrences and if any question of law or fact common to all these persons will arise in the action." Only one common question is required. (State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1093, 1113 [abrogated on other grounds by Cel-Tech Comms., Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Tel. Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 163].)

The court concludes there is at least one common question here; plaintiffs assert that PG&E undertook to fire for similar pretextual reasons all of the employees who raised safety concerns at a February 2018 meeting. That is enough for the court to deny relief on misjoinder grounds, notwithstanding that that there are also many material facts that relate only to each individual plaintiff, such as the circumstances of and asserted reasons for his firing.

PG&E asks in the alternative that the court order separate trials as a matter of its discretion under CCP 379.5 to prevent an unwieldy and confusing jury trial. Exercising its discretion, the court grants the alternative relief of permitting (but not requiring) PG&E to file separate summary judgment and/or summary adjudication motions for each plaintiff. The court is persuaded that a single summary judgment motion will likely be unduly confusing for the court if not for the parties.

The court denies the request for separate trials without prejudice to renewal of that motion before the trial court.

The court recognizes that drafting, responding to, and deciding up to four summary judgment motions is a big undertaking for everyone involved. The court encourages the parties to meet and confer about a hearing schedule that makes sense for everyone, and to consider setting the motions for hearing on a day more than 30 days before trial, so that the court has a little more time to decide multiple motions if needed.

If the parties would like to discuss a briefing schedule or proposed stipulations with the court, the court invites that conversation either at the hearing on this motion or in a separately scheduled case management conference. [End of part 1 of 1 of the tentative ruling] =(301/CVA) | |