In a case pitting county employees against the landlord of their
former offices for allegedly neglecting a toxic mold problem, a
judge Tuesday consolidated the 24 plaintiffs into a single case and
also ruled against a request to relocate the proceedings from San
Benito County.
Employees of county Child Support Services allege that mold from
water leaks at their former workplace caused illness in some
employees during the past two years. Twenty-four of the 25 workers
filed a lawsuit in December against the owners, Lawrence Family
LLC, and the employees moved to a different building in late
February.
In a case pitting county employees against the landlord of their former offices for allegedly neglecting a toxic mold problem, a judge Tuesday consolidated the 24 plaintiffs into a single case and also ruled against a request to relocate the proceedings from San Benito County.
Employees of county Child Support Services allege that mold from water leaks at their former workplace caused illness in some employees during the past two years. Twenty-four of the 25 workers filed a lawsuit in December against the owners, Lawrence Family LLC, and the employees moved to a different building in late February.
Superior Court Judge Harry Tobias approved the request for consolidation – made by the defendants – to allow easier management for everyone involved, including the courts.
“From the standpoint of the court having to manage 24 different trials, it makes sense for me to order consolidation,” Tobias said.
He also told the two attorneys that consolidation would save their clients – and the lawyers – money and an unnecessary “burden.” During the early stages of the case alone, filing costs for the 24 complaints cost the defendants about $6,000, according to Chris Karic, attorney for the Lawrence Family LLC.
Both attorneys agreed with Tobias on the consolidation, at least for the time being.
Representing the plaintiffs, Charles Kelly said his clients do not oppose a pre-trial consolidation. However, if the case necessitates a trial, the plaintiffs will oppose grouping them together. Kelly said each person’s experiences in the allegedly infested building involved “separate causation.”
Karic argued that it wouldn’t make sense to have separate trials.
“Doctors would have to be brought in… Liability experts would have to testify for 24 clients,” he said. “The expense would be enormous for this county.”
The defendants also requested the relocation to Santa Clara County for two reasons – county involvement and media coverage. The Lawrence Family LLC filed a cross complaint against San Benito County alleging the county failed to “maintain the premises as clean and sanitary…” according to court documents.
Karic said it is “extremely likely” that county officials will file a counter-complaint against the defendant, thus raising the county’s involvement with the case and justifying the relocation.
“Jurors tend not to want to find the county in which they live to be at fault,” Karic said.
Secondly, Karic argued that media coverage in recent months could influence a jury’s decision should the case go to trial by jury.
“If I could point out we have reporters here in the courtroom today who are tracking this case,” Karic said. “There have been three articles.”
Tobias denied the defendant’s request to relocate because the county has not officially become involved. And, Tobias said, “I don’t believe there has been substantial publicity.”
If a trial occurs and the Lawrence Family LLC still feels a risk for an impartial jury, Tobias said the presiding judge would consider a motion at that time.
“I’m glad the judge didn’t change the venue from San Benito County,” Kelly said. “We believe the citizens of San Benito County called as jurors can give the Lawrence Family an impartial trial.”
Tobias scheduled another hearing for June 5 and advised both attorneys to notify all involved parties to attend.
Aside from filing a cross-complaint against the county, the Lawrence Family LLC has also filed cross-complaints against a maintenance company and a roofing company, citing the companies’ failure to “provide preventative maintenance” and “construction services,” respectively. Tobias has asked for representatives from those businesses to also be present.
