Judge: David A. Hoffer, Case: 30-2021-01228362, Date: 2023-05-22 Tentative Ruling

The unopposed Motion to Consolidate Cases for All Purposes filed by Defendants John Steven Vo and E Tec, LLC on 3/10/23 is GRANTED.

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048(a).)

“Each case presents its own facts and circumstances, but the court will usually consider the following: (1) timeliness of the motion: i.e., whether granting consolidation would delay the trial of any of the cases involved, or whether discovery in one or more of the cases has proceeded without all parties present; (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.” (Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Proc. Before Trial, 12:362.) The granting or denial of the motion to consolidate rests in the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed except upon a clear showing of abuse of discretion. (Todd-Stenberg v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 976, 978–79.)

Here, the actions were already related and are set for the same future dates for Mandatory Settlement and Jury Trial. Consolidation would not delay trial for either case.  Joining the trials would not add complexity, as the two actions concern identical parties, facts, and law.  There is no indication that consolidation would adversely affect the rights of any party, and indeed all parties have signed the stipulation to consolidate except Donald Edward Cots.

While there are procedural defects in the motion, CCP § 1048 gives the court the power to consolidate actions to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.  As the cases are essentially identical, it would clearly avoid unnecessary cost and delay to consolidate the actions.

Accordingly, the motion is granted.

The moving party is ordered to file a proposed order consolidating the cases for all purposes and to give notice of this ruling.