Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 24STCV05654, Date: 2024-11-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV05654    Hearing Date: November 7, 2024    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

I. Background

A. Pleadings

Plaintiff Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club (AAA), as subrogee of David Gastelo (Gastelo), sues Defendant Southern California Edison Company (SoCal Edison) pursuant to a March 6, 2024, Complaint for Inverse Condemnation.

The Complaint arises from the following. AAA provided insurance coverage for Gastelo’s property located at 15260 Binney Street in Hacienda Heights, California (the Subject Property). On March 18, 2021, one or more mylar balloons came into contact with and damaged a transmission line owned and operated by SoCal Edison. The damaged transmission line fell and came into contact with a data line for cable service which was energized by the transmission line and caused secondary electrical events in the Subject Property resulting in a fire. AAA has made payments in the amount of $376,899.16 as part of the ongoing adjustment of the claim and is now subrogated to the rights of the insured, Gastelo, to this extent against SoCal Edison.

B. Motion Before the Court

On March 15, 2024, AAA filed a notice of related cases in relation to David Gastelo v. Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile, et al. (LASC Case No. 23STCV05645) and David Gastelo v. Southern California Edison Company, et al. (LASC Case No. 23STCV06122).

On July 9, 2024, the Court deemed all three matters related. All actions are pending before Department 40.

AAA brings the instant motion to consolidate this action—Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club, as subrogee of David Gastelo v. Southern California Edison Company (LASC Case No. 24STCV05654)—with David Gastelo v. Southern California Edison Company, et al. (LASC Case No. 23STCV06122)

In LASC Case No. 23STCV06122, Plaintiff Gastelo sues Defendants SoCal Edison, Edison International (the Edison Defendants), and Does 1 through 100 pursuant to a December 19, 2023, First Amended Complaint alleging causes of action for (1) Negligence, (2) Inverse Condemnation, (3) Trespass, (4) Private Nuisance, (5) Public Nuisance, (6) Violation of Public Utilities Code § 2106, (7) Violation of Health and Safety Code § 12007, (8) Strict Liability, (9) Breach of Contract, and (10) Civil Remedies per Penal Code Section 496. The claims arise from allegations that on March 18, 2021, as a result of the Edison Defendants improper maintenance of its electrical infrastructure, a fire occurred at the Subject Property resulting in significant damage to the Property.

No Opposition to the motion has been filed. AAA’s motion to consolidate is now before the Court.

II. Motion

A. Legal Standard

When cases involving a common question of law or fact are pending in the same superior court, i.e., in the same county, the cases can be consolidated on a party’s motion or on the court’s own motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 1048, subdivision (a). 

Cases can be consolidated for (1) all purposes (Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp. (200) 22 Cal.4th 1127, 1147; see Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a)), (2) for trial (Stubblefield Constr. Co. v. City of San Bernardino (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 687, 701; see Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a)), or (3) for limited purposes, e.g., discovery or pretrial matters (see Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a); see, e.g., State v. Altus Fin., S.A. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1284, 1293 [cases consolidated for discovery and pretrial matters]; Austin B. v. Escondido Un. Sch. Dist. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 860, 870 [cases consolidated for discovery and trial]; Frieman v. San Rafael Rock Quarry, Inc. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 29, 33 [cases consolidated for discovery and pretrial determinations]). 

To prevail on a motion to consolidate, a movant must establish that (1) the cases are pending before the same court, (2) the cases share a common question of law or fact, and (3) the benefits of consolidation outweigh the burdens. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a).)

B. Analysis

1. Cases Pending Before Same Court

A party moving for consolidation must establish that the cases being consolidated are pending in the same superior court, i.e., in the same county. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a).) In the Los Angeles Superior Court, “[c]ases may not be consolidated unless they are in the same department.” (Super. Ct. L.A. County, Local Rules, rule 3.3(g)(1).) 

Here, the Lead Case and LASC Case No. 23STCV06122 are both pending before Department 40.

            2. Common Questions of Law or Fact

The movant for consolidation must establish that the cases sought to be consolidated involve a common question of fact or law. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a).) Common questions of law or fact can arise in cases that share common parties and involve a common transaction (e.g., contract) or incident (e.g., automobile accident). (See, e.g., Code Civ. Proc., § 377.62, subd. (b) [wrongful death action and survivor action can be consolidated under section 1048 when actions arise from same wrongful act or neglect]; Martin-Bragg v. Moore (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 367, 385 [trial court has power to consolidate unlawful-detainer proceeding with quiet title action involving same property because successful claim of title by tenant would defeat landlord’s right to possession]; Sanchez v. Superior Court (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 1391, 1395 [cases arising from same car accident were ordered consolidated for trial].) The more predominant and significant the common questions are to the litigation, the more likely the motion will be granted. (Cf. Code Civ. Proc., § 404.1 [factors considered for coordination].)

Here, both the Lead Action and LASC Case No. 23STCV06122 are filed against SoCal Edison and arise from the fire that occurred at the Subject Property on March 18, 2021. In the Lead Action, AAA alleges a cause of action for inverse condemnation to recover subrogated damages. In LASC Case No. 23STCV06122, Gastelo alleges a cause of action for inverse condemnation as well as additional causes of action.

Thus, the cases involve common questions of fact and law because they share common parties and involve a common incident.

            3. Benefits Outweigh Burdens

The movant for consolidation should establish that the benefits of consolidation outweigh the burdens. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a).) To establish this, the movant should argue that consolidation will, e.g.: (1) save time (i.e., length of time to conclude one suit versus multiple suits) or money (see Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a) [“costs” and “delay]); or (2) help prevent the inconsistent adjudication of common and factual legal issues, lessen the burden on judicial resources, or promote the convenience of the parties, witnesses, and attorneys (see Sunrise Fin., LLC v. Superior Court (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 114, 121; cf. Code Civ. Proc., § 404.1 [factors considered for coordination]). 

Here, AAA argues that the cases should be consolidated because the subrogated damages and the uninsured damages are “merely two separate categories arising from the same event. The common cause of action would make separate trials redundant and both cases seek recovery from the same defendant.” (Mot. p. 7:5-6.) Further, AAA asserts that consolidating the cases would not prejudice any party because the “interests in establishing liability against the common defendant are identical for both Gastelo and AAA, [SoCal Edison] would avoid having to present the same defense twice, and because the right to recover the subrogated portion of damages has been transferred to AAA, there is no overlap of the claims.” ((Mot. p. 7:7-10.)

The benefits of consolidation outweigh the burdens in this circumstance. Consolidation will promote judicial economy by having the same issues litigated and decided in the same action rather than in duplicative proceedings, will avoid splitting a cause of action, and will less the burden on judicial resources.
Additionally, SoCal Edison does not oppose the motion and thus there is no evidence that consolidation would be prejudicial to them.

Thus, the motion to consolidate is GRANTED. 

III. Conclusion

Plaintiff Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club as Subrogee of David Gastelo’s Motion to Consolidate is GRANTED.