Judge: Colin Leis, Case: BC709034, Date: 2023-05-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC709034    Hearing Date: May 9, 2023    Dept: 74

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT 

DEPARTMENT 74 

MOVING PARTY:                Plaintiff De Wana Ballou

RESPONDING PARTY:       Defendant Verizon Communications, Inc.

Motion to Consolidate Cases.

The court considered the moving papers, opposition. No reply was filed.

BACKGROUND

            This action arises from a contract dispute.

            On June 6, 2018, Plaintiff De Wana Ballou (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendant Verizon Communications, Inc. (Defendant). The complaint alleged causes of action for negligence and “intentional tort.”

            On December 17, 2020, the court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice.

            On May 14, 2021, the court denied Plaintiff’s motion to set aside/vacate the dismissal.

            On January 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to consolidate this case with case number 21STCV20672.

LEGAL STANDARD 

            Code of Civil Procedure section 1048 grants discretion to trial courts to consolidate actions involving common questions of law or fact. “Consolidation is not a matter of right; it rests solely within the sound discretion of the trial judge . . .” (Fisher v. Nash Bldg. Co. (1952) 113 Cal.App.2d 397, 402.) There are two types of consolidation under section 1048: “a consolidation for purposes of trial only, where the two actions remain otherwise separate; and a complete consolidation or consolidation for all purposes, where the two actions are merged into a single proceeding under one case number and result in only one verdict or set of findings and one judgment.” (Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1127, 1147.)

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff seeks to consolidate this case and case number 21STCV20672. However, Defendant points out that the court dismissed case number 21STCV20672 with prejudice on November 10, 2022. (Opp, at p. 2.) Moreover, on April 7, 2023, the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, stating: “The trial court did not err by confirming the September 12, 2022, arbitration award and dismissing with prejudice plaintiff’s . . . lawsuit.” (Ex. A.) Consequently, case number 21STCV20672 is no longer pending, as required by Code of Civil Procedure. (Code. Civ. Proc., § 1048 [“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.”].) Thus, Plaintiff’s motion to consolidate is moot.

CONCLUSION

                The court denies Plaintiff’s motion to consolidate.

            Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  ¿May 9, 2023

_____________________________ 

Colin Leis 

Judge of the Superior Court