consolidation clause in California

2014These Dispute Resolution Rules and Procedures are written to guide an Associate through the arbitration process; however, they apply with full force and effect to both Associates and CarMax,” and (in a consolidation clause) “CarMax and the Associate are required to bring all existing claims subject to arbitration in one arbitration proceeding.” “ ‘[U]nlike the agreement in Armendariz[, supra, 24 Cal.4th 83 ], which explicitly limited the scope of the arbitration agreement to wrongful termination claims and therefore implicitly *404 excluded the employer’s claims against the employee [citation]

2014These Dispute Resolution Rules and Procedures are written to guide an Associate through the arbitration process; however, they apply with full force and effect to both Associates and CarMax,” and (in a consolidation clause) “CarMax and the Associate are required to bring all existing claims subject to arbitration in one arbitration proceeding.” “‘[U]nlike the agreement in Armendariz[, supra, 24 Cal.4th 83 ], which explicitly limited the scope of the arbitration agreement to wrongful termination claims and therefore implicitly excluded the employer’s claims against the employee [citation], the

2022(Henson, supra, 28 Cal.App.5th at p. 524 , dis. opn. of Smith, J.) In the dissent’s view, the consolidation clause’s purpose is merely to give courts authority to consolidate related pleadings; its purpose is not to state the circumstances in which a consolidation order is required, thus implying that in other circumstances one is not required.

2022(See Henson, supra, 28 Cal.App.5th at p. 505 .) The negative inference that the Court of Appeal drew from the consolidation clause would be more obvious if the clause provided: “. . . if two or more accusatory pleadings are filed in [related] cases in the same court, a court order is required for the court may order them to be consolidated.” Phrased that way, the clause would suggest that a court order is not otherwise required, and that is precisely the way the Court of Appeal construed the clause. 10 PEOPLE v. HENSON Opinion of the Court by Jenkins, J.

2022(State Dept. of Public Health v. Superior Court (2015) 60 Cal.4th 940, 955 .) The Court of Appeal rejected this view for a different reason.

2020While by the time of trial the parties were identical, when the two cases were consolidated, the defendants in both cases were not identical—while there was one common defendant, the remaining defendants differed between the two cases. ( Hamilton, supra, 22 Cal.4th at pp. 1133-1134.) Moreover, the identity of the parties did not factor into the Supreme Court’s consolidation analysis.

1940After discussing the point at some length, the court concluded (p. 260) : “We have reached-the conclusion that while the order consolidating the two cases for trial was erroneous, it was an error of procedure only and subject to the provisions of section 4% of article YI of the Constitution. ’ ’ The court held that no prejudice was shown and affirmed the conviction. *74 The Aguinaldo case, supra, was followed in People v. Shepherd, 14 Cal. App. (2d) 513 [ 58 Pac. (2d) 970 ].