Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV36104, Date: 2023-09-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV36104    Hearing Date: March 19, 2024    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

Defendants TSV Sound & Vision LLC and Michael Ernest Grieg (“Defendants”) move the Court to consolidate this case with the following cases for all purposes: 22STCV36727 (Geltch v. That’s Your Ballgame, LLC, et al.), 23STCV03426 (Butchko v. TSV Sound & Vision LLC, et al.), and 23STCV04630 (Cottrell, et al. v. TSV Sound & Vision LLC, et al.)

There is no opposition to the Motion.

LEGAL STANDARD

California Code of Civil Procedure section 1048 states: “When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; 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.”

Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.350, subdivision (a)(1), a notice of motion to consolidate must: (A) List all named parties in each case, the names of those who have appeared, and the names of their respective attorneys of record; (B) Contain the captions of all the cases sought to be consolidated, with the lowest numbered case shown first; and (C) Be filed in each case sought to be consolidated. (2) The motion to consolidate: (A) Is deemed a single motion for the purpose of determining the appropriate filing fee, but memorandums, declarations, and other supporting papers must be filed only in the lowest numbered case; (B) Must be served on all attorneys of record and all non-represented parties in all of the cases sought to be consolidated; and (C) Must have a proof of service filed as part of the motion. 

¿“Cases may not be consolidated unless they are in the same department. A motion to consolidate two or more cases may be noticed and heard after the cases, initially filed in different department, have been¿related¿into a single department, or if the cases were already assigned to that department.” (LASC Local Court Rules, Rule 3.3(g)(1).)

The purpose of consolidation is to avoid unnecessary costs or delay, avoid duplication of procedure, particularly in the proof of issues common to both action, and avoid inconsistent results by hearing and deciding common issues together.  (See Estate of Baker (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 471, 485.)  The granting or denial of a motion to consolidate rests in the trial court's sound discretion, and will not be reversed except upon a clear showing of abuse of discretion. (Feliner v. Steinbaum (1955) 132 Cal.App.2d 509, 511.)  Each case presents its own facts and circumstances, but the court generally considers the following: (1) timeliness of the motion: i.e., whether granting consolidation would delay the trial of any of the cases involved; (2) complexity: i.e., whether joining the actions involved would make the trial too confusing or complex for a jury; and (3) prejudice: i.e, whether consolidation would adversely affect the rights of any party. (See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1956) 47 Cal.2d 428, 430–431.) 

DISCUSSION

As an initial matter, the four cases have been deemed related and are pending in Department 32; 22STCV36104 was designated the lead case. (Min. Order, 12/4/23.) The Court grants Defendants’ request for judicial notice of the complaints in these cases and the notice of ruling filed December 29, 2023.

Defendants argue that the four cases arise out of the same incident that occurred on August 28, 2022 at the Move for MDS Walk in Griffith Park, Los Angeles. All the plaintiffs allege injuries that occurred after an LED wall allegedly fell on attendees. As a result, the Court finds that the four cases involve common questions of law and fact.

Therefore, in light of the above, and seeing no opposition, the motion to consolidate for all purposes is granted.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Consolidate is GRANTED.

All future papers must be filed in 22STCV36104 only and all future hearings must be scheduled in 22STCV36104 only. All hearing dates in 22STCV36727, 23STCV03426, and 23STCV04630 are advanced and vacated.

Defendants shall provide notice of this order and file a proof of service of such.