Court Opinion

ID: 9875149
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 22:25:53.080722+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:46:57.286566
License: Public Domain

FLIER, J.,
Concurring.—Although I find procedural and substantive deficiencies in Ford Motor Company’s (Ford’s) add-on petition, I concur in the result. Because the coordinated proceeding was stayed shortly after the original coordination order and remains stayed, the “ ‘relative development of the actions and the work product of counsel’ ” should have been the primary consideration in evaluating Ford’s add-on petition (as the majority concludes). (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 637, quoting Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.544(c).)
*647In this case, the trial court concluded that the relative development of the actions “weighted] in favor of coordination,” and the record supported that conclusion for most of the proposed add-on cases. For that reason only, I concur that the add-on cases should have been coordinated. Further, as the majority states, the trial court retains “discretion to determine that specific add-on cases are not suitable for coordination.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 646.)
A petition for a rehearing was denied May 25, 2017.