Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 23CHCV03416, Date: 2025-02-24 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: 23CHCV03416    Hearing Date: February 24, 2025    Dept: F49

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

Motion filed: 12/13/24

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Juan Carlos Rodriguez

RESPONDING PARTY: None.

NOTICE: OK.

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order consolidating cases Troy Allen v. Juan Carlos Rodriguez, et al. (Case No. 23CHCV03416) and Chasitity Morris-Diaz v. Juan Carlos Rodriguez, et al. (Case No. 24CHCV00514), with Case No. 23CHCV03416 designated as the lead case.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

This action arises from alleged personal injuries that Plaintiff sustained in a motor vehicle collision on September 15, 2022.

On November 7, 2023, Plaintiff Troy Allen (“Allen”) filed a Complaint (Case No. 23CHCV03416) against Defendants Juan Carlos Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”), Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”), Rasier, LLC, Rasier-CA, LLC, and Does 1 through 100. The Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) Negligence, (2) Negligence Per Se (California Vehicle Code § 21453(a)), (3) Negligent Hiring/Supervision/Training and Retention of Employee. Subsequently, on December 21, 20223, Defendants Uber, Rasier LLC, and Rasier-CA LLC filed their joint Answer, and Rodriguez filed his Answer on July 26, 2024.

On February 21, 2024, Plaintiff Chastity Morris-Diaz (“Morris-Diaz”) filed a Complaint (Case No. 24CHCV00514) against Defendants Rodriguez, Uber, Rasier, LLC, Rasier-CA, LLC, and Does 1 to 20, alleging two causes of action: (1) Motor Vehicle Negligence, and (2) General Negligence.) Subsequently, Rasier, LLC and Rasier-CA LLC filed their joint Answer on April 19, 2024, and Rodriguez filed his Answer on June 5, 2024. On January 29, 2025, Morris-Diaz dismissed Uber.

On October 16, 2024, Plaintiff Morris-Diaz filed a Notice of Related Case. Subsequently, on October 18, 2024, the Court granted the Notice, deeming the cases related, with the Case No. 23CHCV03416 designated as the lead case.

On December 13, 2024, Defendant Rodriguez filed the instant Motion to Consolidate (the “Motion”). Subsequently, on January 16, 2025, Morris-Diaz filed a Declaration requesting the Court grant the Motion.

No Opposition or Reply papers have been received by the Court.

ANALYSIS

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.)

¿ 

A.    Motion to Consolidate

As a preliminary matter, moving Defendant Rodriguez has substantially complied with California Rules of Court, rule 3.350. The Court notes that, although Rodriguez has not filed the notice of motion in each case sought to be consolidated (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350, subd. (a)(1)(C)), the Proof of Service demonstrates that Rodriguez has served the Motion papers on counsels for all affected parties in both cases. Additionally, Plaintiff Morris-Diez, in Case No. 24CHCV00514, filed a declaration on January 16, 2025, in both cases, requesting that the Court grant the Motion.

Moreover, the Court finds that the circumstances warrant consolidation under Code of Civil Procedure section 1048, subdivision (a). First, both cases are pending before this Court. Second, the cases involve a common question of fact – namely, an automotive collision on September 15, 2022. Third, the cases involve common questions of law: negligence liability against the same Defendants: Rodriguez, Rasier LLC, and Rasier-CA LLC. Fourth, as Rodriguez noted, consolidation will be convenient for parties, witnesses, and counsels. Fifth, Rodriguez demonstrates that consolidation will avoid the risk of inconsistent rulings. And sixth, no Oppositions have been filed by other parties.

 Accordingly, in the interest of judicial economy, the Court GRANTS the Motion and designates the lower-numbered case, Case No. 23CHCV03416, as the lead case. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350, subd. (b).)

CONCLUSION

Defendant Juan Carlos Rodriguez’s Motion to Consolidate is GRANTED.

Moving party is to give notice.