Judge Cynthia A Freeland, Case 37-2022-00024197-CU-PA-NC 2023-12-01 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Cynthia A Freeland, Case: 37-2022-00024197-CU-PA-NC, Date: 2023-12-01 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

SOUTH BUILDING TENTATIVE RULINGS - November 30, 2023

12/01/2023 01:30:00 PM N-27 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Cynthia A. Freeland

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited PI/PD/WD - Auto Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00024197-CU-PA-NC RYAN VS BISHOP [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Consolidate Cases, 09/13/2023

Defendant/Cross-Complainant Delia Bishop ('Defendant')'s motion for consolidation or, alternatively, for trial continuance or bifurcation is denied.

As an initial matter, although the motion is styled as a 'Motion for Consolidation and Alternative Request for Trial Continuance/Bifurcation,' Defendant cites no authority and provides no analysis for why a trial continuance is warranted in this action. Moreover, the court does not find, under the present circumstances, good cause to order a trial continuance in this matter. See Cal. R. Ct. 3.1332; Pham v. Nguyen (1997) 54 Cal. App. 4th 11, 13-18; Link v. Cater (1998) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1315, 1321; In re Marriage of Falcone and Fyke (2008) 164 Cal. App. 4th 814, 823; Oliveros v. County of Los Angeles (2004) 120 Cal. App. 4th 1389, 1398-1399. Consequently, to the extent Defendant seeks a trial continuance in this matter, such request is denied.

California Code of Civil Procedure ('CCP') § 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.

Cal. Code Civ. P. § 1048(a). The purpose of consolidation is to avoid: (1) unnecessary costs or delays; (2) procedural duplication (particularly in proving issues common to both actions); and (3) inconsistent rulings. See Estate of Baker (1982) 131 Cal. App. 3d 471, 485. In determining whether to order consolidation, courts generally consider: (1) the timeliness of the motion; (2) whether joining the actions would make the trial too confusing or complex for a jury; and (3) whether consolidation would adversely affect the rights of any party. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Sup. Ct., In and For the City and County of San Francisco (1956) 47 Cal. 2d 428, 430-431. Courts should weigh whether: (1) common

issues predominate over individual issues, and (2) any risks of jury confusion or prejudice to the parties outweigh the reduction in time and expense that consolidation would occasion. See Todd-Stenberg v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust (1996) 48 Cal. App. 4th 976, 978. The court has broad discretion to consolidate actions. Ibid. at 978-979.

CCP § 1048(b) allows the court to order a separate trial on any cause of action, any separate issue, or any number of causes of action or issues 'in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy . . . .' Cal. Code Civ. P. § 1048(b). 'As the cases explain, the objective of bifurcation of the issues is avoidance of waste of time and money caused Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3017323 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: RYAN VS BISHOP [IMAGED] 37-2022-00024197-CU-PA-NC by the trial of issues which may be rendered moot . . . .' Bedolla v. Logan & Frazer (1975) 52 Cal. App. 3d 118, 135.

The court finds that Defendant has not demonstrated good cause for an order consolidating the present action (Ryan v. Bishop, Case No. 37-2022-00024197-CU-PA-NC) (the 'Bishop Action') with Ryan v. Rios (Case No. 37-2022-00028385-CU-PA-NC) (the 'Rios Action'). The Sixth District Court of Appeal has noted: There are two types of consolidation: a complete consolidation resulting in a single action, and a consolidation of separate actions for trial. Under the former procedure, which may be utilized where the parties are identical and the causes could have been joined, the pleadings are regarded as merged, one set of findings is made, and one judgment is rendered. In a consolidation for trial, the pleadings, verdicts, findings and judgments are kept separate; the actions are simply tried together for the sake of convenience and judicial economy. (See generally 4 Witkin Cal. Procedure (3d ed. 1985) Pleading, § 298 ff.) Sanchez v. Sup. Ct. (1988) 203 Cal. App. 3d 1391, 1396.

In this case, complete consolidation of the Bishop and Rios Actions is not appropriate given that the parties in the two lawsuits are not identical. In the Bishop Action: (1) on June 20, 2022, Plaintiff Celeste Ryan ('Plaintiff') filed a Complaint for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant (see ROA No. 1; MacKinnon Decl., Ex. A); (2) on September 14, 2023, Defendant filed a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Complainant/Cross-Defendant Jose Rios for contribution, indemnity, and declaratory relief (see ROA No. 66); and (3) on November 6, 2023, Mr. Rios filed a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendants Sarah Chandler and Matthew Ryan for contribution, equitable indemnity, declaratory relief, and negligent entrustment (see ROA No. 69). In the Rios Action: (1) on July 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Mr. Rios for motor vehicle negligence (see Rios Action, ROA No. 1; MacKinnon Decl., Ex. B); (2) on August 30, 2022, Mr. Rios filed a Cross-Complaint against Defendant for apportionment of fault, indemnification, and declaratory relief (see Rios Action, ROA No. 15; MacKinnon Decl., Ex. C); and (3) on December 8, 2022, Defendant filed a Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff and Mr. Rios for contribution, indemnity, and declaratory relief (see Rios Action, ROA No. 19). Based on the foregoing, it is clear that certain parties, viz., Ms. Chandler and Mr. Ryan, are not common to both lawsuits such that complete consolidation is not warranted.

Even if the parties to the Bishop and Rios Actions were identical, which they are not, the court would still find consolidation inappropriate as Defendant has failed to demonstrate that common issues predominate over individual issues in the lawsuits. In the Bishop Action, Plaintiff's Complaint against Defendant alleges that on December 27, 2019, Defendant operated her vehicle in such a negligent manner so as to collide with Plaintiff's vehicle on the offramp of Highway 78 West near the El Camino Real exit. Defendant's Cross-Complaint against Mr. Rios seeks contribution or indemnification in the event that Defendant is found liable for the damages alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint. Mr. Rios' Cross-Complaint against Ms. Chandler and Mr. Ryan alleges that Ms. Chandler and Mr. Ryan are the owners and insurance policy holders of the vehicle Plaintiff was driving at the time of the accident. Mr.

Rios contends that Ms. Chandler and Mr. Ryan were aware that Plaintiff has a medical condition that impacts her ability to operate a vehicle safely and, therefore, Ms. Chandler and Mr. Ryan negligently entrusted the vehicle to Plaintiff. Consequently, if Mr. Rios is found liable for any damages alleged by Plaintiff and/or Defendant, then Ms. Chandler and Mr. Ryan should indemnify Mr. Rios and have their respective percentage any resulting judgment determined by the court. In the Rios Action, Plaintiff's Complaint against Mr. Rios alleges that on February 2, 2020, Mr. Rios operated his vehicle in such a negligent manner so as to collide with Plaintiff's vehicle while coming out of the parking lot at Stater Bros. in Carlsbad, CA. Mr. Rios' Cross-Complaint against Defendant seeks indemnification and apportionment of fault in the event that Mr. Rios is found liable for the damages alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint. Defendant's Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff and Mr. Rios (which Defendant has since dismissed as to Plaintiff only) seeks indemnification and contribution in the event Defendant is found liable for any damages alleged by Plaintiff and/or Mr. Rios.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3017323 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: RYAN VS BISHOP [IMAGED] 37-2022-00024197-CU-PA-NC That being said, the court respectfully disagrees with Defendant that the issues to be adjudicated in the Bishop and Rios Actions are sufficiently similar such that common issues predominate. A review of the operative pleadings shows that the two matters involve separate motor vehicle accidents between different parties occurring nearly two months apart in different locations. Moreover, it is unclear whether Plaintiff is seeking damages for the same or different injuries, i.e., if she suffered different injuries in the two car accidents or if the car accident involving Mr. Rios exacerbated injuries Plaintiff sustained in the car accident with Defendant two months earlier. Toward that end, while Plaintiff pled damage in a general manner in both her Complaint, she included in her Complaint in the Bishop Action damages for loss of enjoyment of social interactions and loss of enjoyment of familial interactions, damages she did not include in her Complaint in the Rios Action. Given the differences between the Bishop and Rios Actions, the court finds that consolidation and/or bifurcation will not promote judicial economy or limit litigation costs. Nor is the court persuaded that trying the cases separately will result in juror confusion or other prejudice to the parties. While Defendant might retain Dr. Ron Brizzie and Dr. Janice Cruz as expert witnesses in both lawsuits, there is no evidence that those individuals will be testifying as to the same injuries. Furthermore, prejudice may occur if the matters are tried together given the potential for the jury to: (1) assign blame to Mr. Rios for injuries caused primarily by Defendant, and/or (2) disregard the unique circumstances surrounding each car accident. In addition, it would not be economical or efficient to consolidate the Bishop and Rios Actions given the cases' respective postures. The Bishop Action is not yet at issue given the recent filing of Mr. Rios' Cross-Complaint. On the other hand, trial in the Rios Action is less than four months away (March 15, 2024) with the first expert exchange to be completed later this month.

In light of the foregoing, the court denies Defendant's motion for consolidation or, alternatively, for trial continuance or bifurcation.

This is the tentative ruling for the hearing at 1:30 p.m. on Friday, December 1, 2023. If no party appears at the hearing, this tentative ruling will become the order of the court as of December 1, 2023. If the parties are satisfied with the court's tentative ruling or do not otherwise wish to argue the motion, they are encouraged to give notice to the court and each other of their intention not to appear, though this notice is not required.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3017323