Torres, Bersabed vs. Ventura Coastal, LLC

Case No.: VCU319885 Date: June 8, 2026 Time: 8:30 A.M. Dept. 9-The Honorable Nathan D. Ide Motion: Defendant's Motion to Consolidate Tentative Ruling: To deny the motion

Background Facts In this matter, VCU319885, Plaintiff has filed a class action complaint on behalf of himself and others similarly situated for various violations of the Labor Code and Business and Professions Code (the "Class Action Case") as follows: (1) Unpaid Overtime (Labor Code Sec.Sec. 510 and 1198); (2) Unpaid Meal Period Premiums (Labor Code Sec.Sec. 226.7 and 512(a)); (3) Unpaid Rest Period Premiums (Labor Code Sec. 226.7); (4) Unpaid Minimum Wages (Labor Code Sec.Sec. 1194, 1197 and 1197.1); (5) Final Wages Not Timely Paid (Labor Code Sec.Sec. 201, 202 and 203); (6) Wages Not Timely Paid During Employment (Labor Code Sec.Sec. 204 and 210); (7) Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements (Labor Code Sec.226(a)); and (8) Violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq.

Plaintiff alleges in the Class Action Case that Defendant regularly required its employees to work off-the-clock without compensation, prohibited employees from accurately recording the actual time worked and failed to correctly calculate overtime pay at the regular rate of pay, thereby failing to pay them for all hours worked, including minimum and overtime wages and that Defendant routinely failed to relieve employees of all duties and relinquish control over employees during their meal and rest periods. Therefore, Defendant did not timely pay these employees during employment or separation, further rendering their wage statements inaccurate.

On August 27, 2025, Defendant filed a notice of related cases, indicating that Plaintiff had also filed VCU324072, a Private Attorney General Act case on behalf aggrieved employees only (the "PAGA Case")

In the PAGA Case, the underlying claims include: (1) failure to pay all minimum wages (Labor Code Sec.Sec. 1194 and 1198, et seq.); (2) failure to pay all overtime wages (Labor Code Sec.Sec. 204, 510, 1194 and 1198, et seq.); (3) failure to provide legally required meal periods/failure to pay an additional hour of premium pay for meal period violations (Labor Code Sec.Sec. 226.7 and 512); (4) failure to provide legally required rest periods/failure to pay an additional hour of premium pay for rest period violations (Labor Code Sec.Sec. 226.7 and 512); (5) failure to timely pay all wages owed at the end of employment (Labor Code Sec. 203); (6) failure to pay all wages owed during employment (Labor Code Sec. 204); (7) failure to furnish complete, accurate, itemized wage statements (Labor Code Sec. 226); (8) failure to maintain accurate records relating to work periods, meal periods, total daily hours, hours per pay period, total wages and compensation, and applicable pay rates (Labor Code Sec. 1174(d) and the applicable IWC Wage Order); and (9) failure to reimburse for necessary business expenses (Labor Code Sec.Sec. 2800 and 2802)

Plaintiff alleges in the PAGA Case that Defendant regularly required its employees to work off-the-clock without compensation, prohibited employees from accurately recording the actual time worked and failed to correctly calculate overtime pay at the regular rate of pay, thereby failing to pay them for all hours worked, including minimum and overtime wages and that Defendant routinely failed to relieve employees of all duties and relinquish control over employees during their meal and rest periods.

Further, that Defendant failed to reimburse employees for mileage or travel expenses between job locations, expenses for the use of a personal cell phone for work-related purposes, and for non-slip shoes required for the job. As a result, Defendant did not timely pay these employees during employment nor upon separation, and all wage statements and records provided to these employees were inaccurate.

On September 11, 2025, Defendant filed this notice of motion and motion to consolidate the Class Action Case and the PAGA Case. On November 4, 2025, the Court signed the order consolidating these matters, noting in its prior tentative ruling on November 3, 2025 that: "Here, the substantive elements of section 1048(a) appear to be met, given the overlapping representation of employees given the definition of the Class Members and aggrieved employees, the same Plaintiff, same Defendant and nearly identical Labor Code violations. The Court further notes it adjudicates cases involving both class action and PAGA claims regularly. This fits squarely within the "common issues" requirement of section 1048(a)." The Court will refer to the Class Action Case and PAGA Case as the "Consolidated Cases" hereinafter.

Facts as to Additional Consolidation of Case No. VCU332388 Via this motion, Defendant seeks to consolidate the Consolidated Cases with Bersabed Torres v. Ventura Coastal, LLC and Alisa Montes, Case Number VCU332388, filed March 9, 2026, a case involving individual discrimination, harassment and retaliation claims (hereinafter the "Discrimination Case")

Pursuant to Rule 3.300 of the California Rules of Court, on March 30, 2026, Ventura filed and served Notices of Related Cases relating to the Consolidated Cases and the Discrimination Case. Defendant argues that both actions include common questions of law or fact as the parties are nearly identical (aside from naming Defendant Alisa Montes personally in the Discrimination Case) and the claims alleged arise from the same employment relationship and time period. Defendant argues that, for consolidation, the cases need only share a single common question of law or fact.

Further, Defendant argues both cases involves that the terms and conditions of the employment; work schedule and job duties; the hours worked; Defendant's compensation policies; Defendant's wage and hour practices and policies; and the identities and conduct of supervisors and decision-makers. Additionally, that consolidation will promote judicial economy, avoid unnecessary costs and avoid inconsistent rulings. Finally, that no party will be prejudiced by consolidation.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues, chiefly, that the Discrimination Case contains no wage and hour claims of any kind, that there is little, if any, crossover as to discovery or witnesses and notes that resolution of the Consolidated Cases will not affect the Discrimination Case in any manner.

Authority and Analysis Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1048, subd. (a), "[w]hen actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court...it may order all the actions consolidated and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay." "A consolidation of actions does not affect the rights of the parties. The purpose of consolidation is merely to promote trial convenience and economy by avoiding duplication of procedure, particularly in the proof of issues common to both actions." (Wouldridge v.

Burns (1968) 265 Cal.App.2d 82, 86.) "Under the statute and the case law, there are thus two types of consolidation: a consolidation for purposes of trial only, where the two actions remain otherwise separate; and a complete consolidation or consolidation for all purposes, where the two actions are merged into a single proceeding under one case number and result in only one verdict or set of findings and one judgment." (Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1127, 1147.) "Consolidation under Code of Civil Procedure section 1048 is permissive, and it is for the trial court to determine whether the consolidation is for all purposes or for trial only." (Id. at 1149.)

Consolidation "is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial [court]." Fellner v. Steinbaum (1955) 132 Cal.App.2d 509, 511.)

Here, the Court finds that the purposes of consolidation would not be served by including the Discrimination Case into the Consolidated Case, as the Discrimination Case involves different claims unique to Torres alone and Torres' individual experiences while working for Defendant based on Torres' physical disabilities. As such, the cases do not appear to arise from common questions of law or fact. Wage and hour violations are distinct from discrimination, retaliation and harassment claims based on physical disability. Therefore, the Court denies the motion.

If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order. Court reporters are usually not available for law and motion matters in the civil division. The parties and counsel must provide their own reporter if they want a transcript of the proceedings.

Visalia-County Civic Center Honorable Bret D. Hillman; Honorable Nathan D. Ide Examiner notes for probate matters calendared June 8 - 9, 2026, that allow for posting: Status: Recommended for Approval (RFA), Appearance Required or Recommended, Approval Conditional Upon, etc. Case Number | Case Name