On November 16, 2020 a
Order
was filed
involving a dispute between
Anderson Michela Leslie,
Andre Daniella,
California Family Farms Llc,
Clasby Kerry,
Holst Jens,
Mcgret Julie,
Obermeyer Klaus,
Ramey Philip,
Reynolds Richard Arnold,
Rutherford Dallas,
Stern Albert,
Stern Patricia,
Stern Shawn,
and
Edison International,
Southern California Edison Company,
for Claims Involving Mass Tort (General Jurisdiction)
in the District Court of Los Angeles County.
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Civil Division
Central District, Spring Street Courthouse, Department 10
20STCV43589 May 13, 2022
ALBERT STERN, et al. vs SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 1:30 PM
EDISON COMPANY, et al.
Judge: Honorable William F. Highberger CSR: None
Judicial Assistant: Aldwin Lim ERM: None
Courtroom Assistant: None Deputy Sheriff: None
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff(s): No Appearances
For Defendant(s): No Appearances
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Court Order Re Need for CMO
On April 1, 2022 we discussed the problems which arise when some, but not all, of the
clients/parties in a given Complaint exercise their right to change counsel. Notice was waived
and the Minute Order was silent on the go-forward instructions as to what is supposed to happen
next. In reviewing CaseAnywhere for possible objections to a recent round of Add-On petitions,
I happened to notice various Substitutions of Counsel which seem to present this problem, e.g.
Egstrom, Lipscomb coming into 21STCV15249 for some but not all plaintiffs. Conversely in
20STCV42852, the only client/plaintiff changed counsel, which does NOT create a problem.
Plaintiff's Leadership is requested to create a Draft CMO (in consultation with defense counsel)
which would address how this would be resolved with the new counsel either tacking these
names onto an existing filing where the legal representation would be correctly described. or
filing a new action listing the new clients only. I would expect appearing defendants to agree to a
relation back to such parties' original filing since there should be no statute of limitations
gamesmanship flowing from these necessary clerical updates. If a new action was filed, I would
be prepared to have the CMO authorize requests for refunds of the unavoidable filing fees which
have to be paid to get a new Complaint filed. Please have a draft CMO ready for consideration at
the July 14, 2022 Further Status Conference.
The parties are notified via message board posting on the Case Anywhere website.
A copy of this minute order will append to the following coordinated cases under JCCP5000:
18STCV05313, 18STCV05362, 18STCV05485, 18STCV05569, 18STCV06113,
18STCV06330, 18STCV06727, 18STCV07486, 18STCV07820, 18STCV08092,
18STCV08285, 18STCV08779, 18STCV08802, 18STCV09119, 18STCV09198,
18STCV09413, 19GDCV00421, 19GDCV00425, 19GDCV00426, 19GDCV00427,
19GDCV00447, 19GDCV00481, 19GDCV00484, 19GDCV00488, 19GDCV00489,
19GDCV00576, 19GDCV00577, 19GDCV00579, 19GDCV00584, 19GDCV00589,
Minute Order Page 1 of 4
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division Central District, Spring Street Courthouse, Department 10 20STCV43589 May 13, 2022 ALBERT STERN, et al. vs SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 1:30 PM EDISON COMPANY, et al. Judge: Honorable William F. Highberger CSR: None Judicial Assistant: Aldwin Lim ERM: None Courtroom Assistant: None Deputy Sheriff: None APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff(s): No Appearances For Defendant(s): No Appearances NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Court Order Re Need for CMO On April 1, 2022 we discussed the problems which arise when some, but not all, of the clients/parties in a given Complaint exercise their right to change counsel. Notice was waived and the Minute Order was silent on the go-forward instructions as to what is supposed to happen next. In reviewing CaseAnywhere for possible objections to a recent round of Add-On petitions, I happened to notice various Substitutions of Counsel which seem to present this problem, e.g. Egstrom, Lipscomb coming into 21STCV15249 for some but not all plaintiffs. Conversely in 20STCV42852, the only client/plaintiff changed counsel, which does NOT create a problem. Plaintiff's Leadership is requested to create a Draft CMO (in consultation with defense counsel) which would address how this would be resolved with the new counsel either tacking these names onto an existing filing where the legal representation would be correctly described. or filing a new action listing the new clients only. I would expect appearing defendants to agree to a relation back to such parties' original filing since there should be no statute of limitations gamesmanship flowing from these necessary clerical updates. If a new action was filed, I would be prepared to have the CMO authorize requests for refunds of the unavoidable filing fees which have to be paid to get a new Complaint filed. Please have a draft CMO ready for consideration at the July 14, 2022 Further Status Conference. The parties are notified via message board posting on the Case Anywhere website. A copy of this minute order will append to the following coordinated cases under JCCP5000: 18STCV05313, 18STCV05362, 18STCV05485, 18STCV05569, 18STCV06113, 18STCV06330, 18STCV06727, 18STCV07486, 18STCV07820, 18STCV08092, 18STCV08285, 18STCV08779, 18STCV08802, 18STCV09119, 18STCV09198, 18STCV09413, 19GDCV00421, 19GDCV00425, 19GDCV00426, 19GDCV00427, 19GDCV00447, 19GDCV00481, 19GDCV00484, 19GDCV00488, 19GDCV00489, 19GDCV00576, 19GDCV00577, 19GDCV00579, 19GDCV00584, 19GDCV00589, Minute Order Page 1 of 4