Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 23CHCV02523, Date: 2024-09-10 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assistant in North Valley Department F49, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2249.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org.
All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies). 

Case Number: 23CHCV02523    Hearing Date: September 10, 2024    Dept: F49

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

MOTION TO JOIN UNDERINSURED MOTORIST CLAIM WITH PENDING SUPERIOR COURT ACTION

Motion filed: 1/25/24

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff/Petitioner Julian Manasseh

RESPONDING PARTY: Respondent American Family Connect Property and Casualty

NOTICE: OK.¿¿¿ 

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order granting Plaintiff/Petitioner’s Request to join Respondent American Family Connect Property and Casualty as a Defendant, and to consolidate an Underinsured Motorist Claim with the current personal injury case.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

This personal injury case arises from an alleged motor vehicle collision on September 13, 2021.

On August 21, 2023, Plaintiff/Petitioner Julian Manasseh (“Petitioner” or “Manasseh”) filed a Complaint against Defendants Shaheer Kazi, Parvez Memon (collectively, “Defendants”), and Does 1 to 20, alleging the following causes of action: (1) Motor Vehicle Liability, and (2) General Negligence. Subsequently, Defendants filed their Answer to the Complaint on May 23, 2024.

On January 25, 2024, Petitioner filed the instant Motion to Join Underinsured Motorist Claim with Pending Superior Court Action, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2 (the “Motion”). Subsequently, Petitioner filed a Reply to the Opposition on August 26, 2024, and Respondent American Family Connect Property and Casualty (“Respondent”) filed its amended Opposition on August 27, 2024.

ANALYSIS

California Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2, subdivision (d) gives a court a number of case management tools when a party to an arbitration agreement is also a party to a pending court action or special proceeding with a third party, which arises from the same transactions or series of related transactions and there is a possibility of conflicting rulings on a common issue of fact or law.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.2, subd. (c) and (d).)

Under the above-detailed circumstances, a court “(1) may refuse to enforce the arbitration agreement and may order intervention or joinder of all parties in a single action or special proceeding; (2) may order intervention or joinder as to all or only certain issues; (3) may order arbitration among the parties who have agreed to arbitration and stay the pending court action or special proceeding pending the outcome of the arbitration proceeding; or (4) may stay arbitration pending the outcome of the court action or special proceeding.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.2, subd. (d).) 

A.    Motion to Join Underinsured Motorist Claim

Petitioner seeks to join Respondent as a Defendant and consolidate an Underinsured Motorist (“UIM”) Claim between the insured Petitioner and the insurer Respondent with the present case.

Petitioner presents that the UIM Claim stems from a separate vehicle collision involving a non-party underinsured driver, Jovani Duncan, which occurred on November 4, 2019. (Mot. at p. 3.) The UIM Claim is subject to a contractual arbitration according to the insurance policy (Mot. at p. 4, Calendo Decl. ¶ 4.)

Here, Petitioner contends that the two accidents – the UIM Claim and the present personal injury case – involve common issues, as the subsequent September 13, 2021 accident caused aggravation of prior injuries claimed in the UIM Claim. (Mot. at p. 7.) Therefore, Petitioner argues that consolidation is proper under Code of Civil Code section 1281.2, citing Mercury Ins. Group v. Superior Court (1998) 19 Cal.4th 332, (Mot. at p. 4), and Prudential Property & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 275(Prudential) (Reply, at p. 2.)

The Court observes that the purpose of the contractual arbitration law, as outlined in Code of Civil Procedure section 1280 et seq., is to “promote contractual arbitration, in accordance with a ‘strong policy’ in favor thereof [Citation Omitted]” (Mercury, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 343.) The contractual arbitration law, in Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2, generally mandates a trial court to compel the arbitration, however, the court may decline to do so under certain situations, such as when there is an issue of law or fact common to the arbitration and a pending action or proceeding with a third party and there is a possibility of conflicting rulings thereon. (Code Civ. Proc., 1281.2 subd. (c).) Therefore, a finding of “common issue of law or fact” is essential in this case to authorize the Court to order intervention or joinder.

The Court distinguishes Mercury, in which the Supreme Court of California upheld the trial court’s joinder of a UIM arbitration proceeding with a related personal injury action arising from a single motor vehicle accident. (Mercury, supra, 19 Cal.4th at pp. 337-338.) The critical distinction in Mercury was that both the UIM claim and the personal injury lawsuit stemmed from the same accident, which justified the joinder based on the common issue of law or fact “arising out of the same transaction.” (Id. at pp. 345-346.)

In contrast, Petitioner here seeks to join a UIM Claim with a separate accident. These involve two entirely unrelated accidents, occurring at defendant times, involving different parties, and under distinct circumstances.

Petitioner argues that joinder does not require both proceedings to arise out of the same occurrence. (Reply, at p. 2.) To support this argument, Petitioner cites Prudential, claiming that the court there considered a matter wherein the plaintiffs were involved in two separate collisions. (Ibid.) 

 However, Petitioner’s argument is unpersuasive. The Prudential found that, based on the specific facts of that case, the two accidents – occurring within a period of about four weeks – caused indivisible injuries to the plaintiff’s lower back, which substantially hindered her career as a professional jazz dancer. (Prudential, supra, 36 Cal.App.4th at p. 278.) The plaintiff “was unable to tell which accident caused how much injury,” creating the potential for inconsistent rulings regarding the comparative fault of the two drivers. (Ibid.)

By contrast, the facts here are distinguishable. Petitioner’s first vehicle collision occurred on November 4, 2019, and the second on September 13, 2021 – a span of over 22 months. Based on the alleged facts, the Court finds that Petitioner sustained separate injuries from two distinct accidents. These injuries are factually and legally independent, and do not support the conclusion that the accidents “[arose from] the same transaction or related transactions,” even though Petitioner claims that the second accident aggravated prior injuries. (Rosenberg Decl. ¶ 5.)

Furthermore, Petitioner has failed to establish that separate proceedings could result in conflicting rulings. Petitioner was diagnosed and treated following the first accident, and any alleged aggravation from the second accident can be established through factual evidence. This situation is distinguishable from cases where Petitioner was unable to reasonably ascertain the extent of the injuries before the subsequent accident occurred.

Petitioner’s additional arguments regarding prejudice fail to address or override the fundamental issue of whether the accidents arise from “the same transactions or series of related transactions.” As such, these arguments are unpersuasive.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Motion to Join Underinsured Motorist Claim.

CONCLUSION

The Motion to Join Underinsured Motorist Claim with Pending Superior Court Action, filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner Julian Manasseh, is DENIED.

Petitioner to provide notice of this order.