Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 19STCV27883, Date: 2022-08-25 Tentative Ruling

All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter.  If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org.  Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line.  In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.

            Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line.     If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.
                          
            Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court.   
 
            If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.  

Case Number: 19STCV27883    Hearing Date: August 25, 2022    Dept: 28

Plaintiff David Louis Levine’s Motion to Consolidate Cases

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On August 8, 2019, Plaintiff David Louis Levine (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Garrett Lawrence Marchbank (“Marchbank”), Luis Perez (“Perez”), Kevin Fitzgerald Daniel (“Daniel”), Watter Healthcare Corporation dba House of Uruhu (“Uruhu”), Watts Healthcare Corporation (“WHC”) and County of Los Angeles (“County”) for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence.

On September 23, 2019, the County filed an answer and a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendant Uruhu for express indemnification, breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing and declaratory relief. On October 11, 2019, Uruhu filed an answer. The Court dismissed the Cross-Complaint, without prejudice, on March 9, 2020.

On October 11, 2019, Perez, WHC and Uruhu filed an answer and a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendant Marchbank for equitable indemnity, apportionment of fault and declaratory relief. On December 30, 2019, Marchbank filed an answer.

On November 19, 2019, Marchbank filed an answer. On January 13, 2022, Daniel was dismissed, without prejudice, pursuant to Plaintiff’s request.

On July 15, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Consolidate Cases to be heard on August 25, 2022.

Trial is current scheduled for November 4, 2022.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Plaintiff request the Court consolidate this case with Case No. 20STCV37896, entitled Beta Healthcare Group v. Marchbank, et al., and Case No. 20STCV40012, entitled Perez v. Marchbank, and designate this case as the lead case.

LEGAL STANDARD

According to CCP § 1048, when actions involved a common question or law or fact, it may order a joint hearing or trial, or order all actions consolidated.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Local Rule 3.3(g) provides as follows: “(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

Plaintiff alleges that all three cases arise out of the same motor vehicle accident and involve common parties to the action. All cases stem from a motor vehicle accident involving the parties in this case.  in this case. All actions were deemed related in February of 2021. They all have the same questions of fact or law. It is within the interest of judicial economy to consolidate these actions. As such, the Court grants the motion.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff David Louis Levine’s Motion to Consolidate Cases is GRANTED. Case No. 19STCV27883, Case No.20STCV37896 and Case No.20STCV40012 are consolidated, with Case No. 19STCV27883 designated as the lead case.

                Moving Party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.