Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 22STCV35313, Date: 2023-11-21 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV35313 Hearing Date: November 21, 2023 Dept: 14
Instant Motion
Defendant Barker now moves this court for an order consolidating this case with case nos. 23 STCV 02018, 23 STCV 02225, 23 STCV 02517, 23 STCV 03307, 23 STCV 03800, and 23 STCV 04467, for all purposes.
Decision
The motion is GRANTED. All currently-set trial and final status conference dates are VACATED.
The court sets a trial setting conference for December 15, 2023, at 8:30 am. By that date, Defense counsel are to ensure that answers have been filed in response to each complaint.
Governing Standard
Code of Civil Procedure § 1048(a) provides that:
“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.”
California Rules of Court Rule 3.350 provides:
“(a) Requirements of motion
(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 nonrepresented parties in all of the cases sought to be consolidated; and
(C) Must have a proof of service filed as part of the motion.
(b) Lead case
Unless otherwise provided in the order granting the motion to consolidate, the lowest numbered case in the consolidated case is the lead case.
(c) Order
An order granting or denying all or part of a motion to consolidate must be filed in each case sought to be consolidated. If the motion is granted for all purposes including trial, any subsequent document must be filed only in the lead case.
(d) Caption and case number
All documents filed in the consolidated case must include the caption and case number of the lead case, followed by the case numbers of all of the other consolidated cases.”
Local Rule 3.3(g) provides in relevant part:
“(1) 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 departments, have been related into a single department, or if the cases were already assigned to that department.
(2) Upon consolidation of cases, the first filed case will be the lead case, unless otherwise ordered by the court. After consolidation, all future papers to be filed in the consolidated case must be filed only in the case designated as the lead case.”
Discussion
These cases are carbon copies of one another. The only difference is the name of the plaintiff. Counsel is the same, defense is the same, and the facts alleged are the same. Consolidation of these cases will certainly make the preparation of this case much more efficient. It may make the presentation of the case more efficient as well.
Plaintiffs complain that Defendant Barker did not comply with the notice provisions of California Rules of Court Rule 3.350. But a review of the files shows that counsel would simply have been giving notice to themselves. The same attorney represents the Plaintiffs in each related case, and the same attorney represents Defendant Barker in each related case. Defendant Barker’s error has resulted in no prejudice.
However, it is not appropriate to try the consolidated cases on the current timeline laid out for the lead case. It would not be fair to expect counsel to prepare seven consolidated cases for trial on January 8, 2024, and even if that were reasonable, Defendant Barker has not filed an answer in the lead case. Defendant Barker needs to remedy that defect before the cases can proceed any further.
Conclusion