Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District 

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff Alis Rivera alleges that following her 26 year old son’s murder, she was the target of identity theft and sought the assistance of Defendant “Miss Robles SSA Hollywood” to “reinstall” her SSI/SSDI disability benefits.  She claims Robles collaborated with four defendants Plaintiff has sued in another “related” case to “further delay payout from Social Security Administration by unauthorized meddling, obstructing our access to food and basic necessities, making false statements leading to crucially dangerous error of dismissing SSI.”  Plaintiff alleges a single claim for negligence against Defendant.   

This hearing is on Plaintiff’s motion to consolidate seven cases, with this case as the leading case: (1) Alis Rivera v. Melissa Vollbrecht pending in Department 46 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse (Case No. 23STSC05024); (2) In the matter of Alis Rivera pending in Department K of the Santa Monica Courthouse (Case No. 24SMCP00442); (3) Alis Rivera v. John M. Erickson pending in Department 304 of the Beverly Hills Court House (Case No. 24BHSC02187); (4) Alis Rivera v. Arpine Eloyan pending in Department 304 of the Beverly Hills Courthouse (Case No. 24BHSC02200); (5) Rivera v. Gayle Anderson, pending in Department 304 of the Beverly Hills Courthouse (Case No. 24BHSC02320), (6) Rivera v. Ascencia, HIA pending in Department P of the Santa Monica Courthouse (Case No. 24SMCP00399) and (7) Rivera v. Robles (Case No. 24SMCV05052), pending before this Court.  Plaintiff contends the seven cases “have similar facts [and] legal issues involving same parties as defendants[.]”  Plaintiff is appearing in pro per.  There is no opposition filed as of the posting of this tentative ruling.   

LEGAL STANDARD 

“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).)  The purpose of consolidation is to enhance trial court efficiency by avoiding unnecessary duplication of evidence and the danger of inconsistent results.  (Todd-Stenberg v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 976, 978-979.)   

The decision to consolidate is entirely within the Court’s discretion. (Id..)  Actions may be consolidated in the discretion of the trial court whenever it can be done without prejudice to a substantial right, and the exercise of such discretion will not be reviewed except in a case of palpable abuse.  (Carpenson v. Najarian (1967) 254 Cal.App.2d 856, 862.)  

Unless the parties stipulate to consolidate cases, a noticed and written motion to consolidate is required. (CRC 3.350.)  “A notice of motion to consolidate must: (A) List all named parties in each case, the names of those who have appeared, and the names of their respective attorneys of record; (B) Contain the captions of all the cases sought to be consolidated, with the lowest numbered case shown first; and (C) Be filed in each case sought to be consolidated.” 

Additionally, “[c]ases 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.” (LASC 3.3.) 

ANALYSIS 

Plaintiff’s notice of motion fails to comply with the rules.  It does not list all the named parties in each case, the names of those who have appeared, and the names of their respective attorneys of record.  It also does not contain the captions of all the cases sought to be consolidated, with the lowest numbered case shown first.  Additionally, it does not appear Plaintiff filed the instant motion to consolidate in each of the seven cases, although it appears she may have sought to consolidate a subset of the seven cases previously (without success).   

Further, the cases Plaintiff seek to consolidate are not related into a single department nor were they assigned to the same department.  This is an independent basis to deny Plaintiff’s motion to consolidate.   

Moreover, the lead case must be the lowest numbered case.  (Rule 3.350 (a)(1)(B), 3.350 (2)(C).)  Here, Plaintiff seeks to consolidate the cases, with this case as the lead case.  But this case is not the lowest numbered case. 

Finally, Plaintiff argues conclusorily that the seven cases involve the same facts and legal issues.  But she does not explain the nature of the claims in each case, and how they are related.  Indeed, a review of the complaints does not show they are factually or legally related.  For example, in Rivera v. Eloyan, Case No. 24BHSC02200, Plaintiff filed a claim in small claims court alleging that “Eloyan”, a library manager and her staff deliberately prevent certain library guests “to access federally financed resources available to public” and the staff engages in “high level antisematic discrimination.”  There is no logical basis to conclude this case has common facts or law to the instant case which involves alleged meddling with the payout of Plaintiff’s SSI/SSDI benefits.  That Plaintiff believes she has been wronged by all the defendants in the seven cases she has filed is not a sufficient basis to consolidate the cases.   

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to consolidate. Additionally, the Court notes that the United States has filed a Notice of Removal to Federal Court.  Accordingly, the Court makes an Order to Show Cause Why the Case Should Not Be Dismissed Due to Removal to Federal Court on April 11, 2025 at 8:30 a.m.  

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED: February 14, 2025 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court