Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 24PSCV01099, Date: 2024-08-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24PSCV01099    Hearing Date: August 29, 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 HEARD ON JULY 1, 2024 is GRANTED.[1]

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.)

On July 1, 2024, the court held its hearing in the 22PSCV01733 case wherein 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 number 24PSCV01099.

On August 7, 2024, the instant motion was filed in case 24PSCV01099.

Discussion

As indicated in the court’s ruling issued in the 22PSCV01733 case, 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.)

The only defect was that the motion was not filed in case No. 24PSCV01099 such that the court ruled that the motion to consolidate would be granted effective upon filing the motion in case 24PSCV01099. Now that the motion was also filed in case 24PSCV01099, the motion is granted.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the court enters an order consolidating for all purposes, including trial, Case No. 22PSCV01733, Case No. 24PSCV01045 and Case No. 24PSCV01099, with Case No. 22PSCV01733 as the designated lead case in this action.