Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 22PSCV01733, Date: 2024-07-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV01733    Hearing Date: July 1, 2024    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

DEFENDANTS, LDI MECHANICAL INC. AND CARLOS HUERTA’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR COMPLETE CONSOLIDATION OF CASES 22PSCV01733, 24PSCV01045 AND 24PSCV01099 is GRANTED; effective upon filing the motion in case No. 24PSCV01099.

Background

This case arises from a motor vehicle accident that happened on 4/25/2022.

On November 8, 2022, Plaintiff Natasha Khoj Shikari filed her action against Defendants LDI Mechanical Inc.; Carlos Huerta for (1) motor vehicle.

On December 7, 2022, Defendants each filed their respective answers.

On April 15, 2024, the court issued its ruling re: Notice of Related case and found that “that the following cases, 22PSCV01733 and 24PSCV01045, are related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a). 22PSCV01733 is the lead case.”

On May 29, 2024, Defendants filed the instant motion.

On June 21, 2024, Plaintiff filed a notice of non-opposition to the motion. According to the motion, Plaintiff requests “that the Motion to Consolidate be granted in its entirety.” (Motion p. 2:1-2.)

Legal Standard

California Rules of Court, rule 3.350(1) requires a consolidation motion notice to: (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.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1048 grants discretion to the trial courts to consolidate actions involving common questions of law or fact.  The trial court’s decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion.  A consolidation of actions does not affect the rights of the parties.  The purpose of consolidation is to avoid unnecessary costs or delay, avoid duplication of procedure, particularly in the proof of issues common to both actions, and avoid inconsistent results by hearing and deciding common issues together.  (See Estate of Baker (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 471, 485.)   “Consolidation is not a matter of right; it rests solely within the sound discretion of the trial judge, and his decision to consolidate, or his refusal to do so, will not be reviewed except upon a clear showing of abuse of discretion.” (Fisher v. Nash Building Co. (1952) 113 Cal.App.2d 397, 402.)

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.)  In deciding whether to grant a motion to consolidate, the court should weigh whether the common issues predominate over the individual issues and whether any risks of jury confusion or prejudice to the parties outweighs the reduction in time and expense that would result from consolidation.  (Todd-Stenberg v. Shield (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 976, 978.)

Discussion

Here, the three actions are based on the same car accident that happened on April 5, 2022, past the intersection of Fairplex Drive and Avalon Avenue in Pomona, California wherein Defendant Huerta’s vehicle impacted Plaintiff Shikari’s vehicle. Plaintiff Shikari’s vehicle then impacted Plaintiff Angel Gonzalez’s vehicle, and Plaintiff Angel Gonzalez’s vehicle struck Plaintiff Aguilar’s vehicle. With the same or overlapping issues (based in negligence), the actions should be consolidated and disposed of as a single proceeding. (Motion p. 7, citing Spector v. Superior Court of San Mateo County (1961) 55 Cal. 2d 839, 844.)

Though Defense Counsel maintains otherwise (Motion p. 11 of 74, Gavigan Decl.), the motion has not been filed in case No. 24PSCV01099. Notwithstanding, the POS indicates that Plaintiff Livier Aguilar has been served with notice of and the motion (Motion p. 74 of 74 of PDF), which mitigates any concerns with the statutorily required 16 court days’ notice a motion. (CCP section 1005(b).)

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the motion is granted, effective upon filing the motion in case 24PSCV01099.