Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 21STCV14752, Date: 2023-07-21 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

Case Number: 21STCV14752    Hearing Date: July 21, 2023    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

AND RELATED ACTION

MOVING PARTY: Defendants University of Southern California and USC Verdugo Hills Hospital (collectively, “Moving Defendants”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff

The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers.

BACKGROUND

            This survivor action arises out of alleged misconduct that occurred while Edgar Dionicio Calderon (“Decedent”) was a patient at Defendants’ hospital.  The complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges violations of the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (the “Elder Abuse Act”). 

On January 28, 2022, the Court deemed this matter related to the wrongful death action alleged the case styled as Edgar Roberto Calderon v. University of Southern California, LASC Case No. 22STCV02031 (the “Wrongful Death Action”).  In the Wrongful Death Action, Decedent’s heirs seek damages arising out of Decedent’s death. 

            On May 16, 2023, Moving Defendants filed a motion to consolidate this action with the Wrongful Death Action (the “Motion”). 

DISCUSSION

Under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1048, subdivision (a), when actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, the court may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions, order all the actions consolidated, and make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.  (CCP § 1048, subd. (a).)  The purpose of consolidation is merely to promote trial convenience and economy by avoiding duplication of procedure, particularly in the proof of issues common to both actions.  (Estate of Baker (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 471, 485.)  A consolidation of actions does not affect the rights of the parties.  (Id.)  Consolidation does not require identical causes of action in each case, absolute identity of the parties, or identical allegations.  (Id.)  In deciding whether to grant a motion to consolidate, the court should weigh whether the common issues predominate over the individual issues and whether any risks of jury confusion or prejudice to the parties outweighs the reduction in time and expense that would result from consolidation.  (See Todd-Stenberq v. Shield (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 976, 978.)  Actions may be thoroughly “related” in the sense of having common questions of law or fact, and still not be consolidated, if the trial court, in the sound exercise of its discretion, chooses not to do so.¿ (Askew v. Askew¿(1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 942, 964.)¿ It is not abuse of discretion to deny motion for consolidation of actions where parties in each action are different or issues are different.¿ (See¿Muller v. Robinson¿(1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 511, 515.)¿  On the other hand, actions may be consolidated in the discretion of the trial court whenever it can be done without prejudice to a substantial right.¿ (Carpenson¿v.¿Najarian¿(1967) 254 Cal.App.2d 856, 862.) 

            The Motion argues that consolidation is appropriate because this action and the Wrongful Death Action involve similar claims against similar defendants, common questions of law and fact, overlapping legal issues, and have overlapping witnesses.  (See Declaration of Carter R. Taylor (“Taylor Decl.”) ¶¶ 6-9.)  Although Plaintiff argues that the two actions raise different claims that require distinct evidence, Plaintiff does not demonstrate that consolidation will complicate the litigation or otherwise risk prejudice to any party.  Given that the Wrongful Death Action is predicated on the violations of the Elder Abuse Act alleged in the Complaint, the Court finds that there is sufficient overlap to merit consolidation.  The Court therefore GRANTS the Motion.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar. 

  Dated this 21st day of July 2023