Judge: Jill Feeney, Case: 19STCV22933, Date: 2022-12-09 Tentative Ruling
PLEASE NOTE:
The parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if there is an agreement to submit.
Regardless of whether there is any such agreement, each party who wishes to submit must send an email to the Court at sscdept30@lacourt.org indicating the party's intention to submit.
Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the case number in the subject line of the email and in the body provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, or non-party.
If a party submits but still intends to appear at the hearing, include the words "SUBMITS BUT WILL APPEAR" in the subject line of the email.
If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.
Unless all the parties have submitted, the Court will hear argument from any party that appears at the hearing and wishes to argue. The Court may change its tentative as a result of the argument and adopt the changed tentative as the final order at the end of that hearing, even if all the parties are not present.
Be advised that after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of said motion and may adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.
Case Number: 19STCV22933 Hearing Date: December 9, 2022 Dept: 30
Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse
December 9, 2022
19STCV22933
Related Case: 22STCV02479
Motion to Consolidate filed by Defendant James Martin Johnson
DECISION
The motion is continued to permit the moving party to cure the deficiency noted below.
The parties are ordered to appear on the date of the hearing to set a continued hearing date.
Moving party to provide notice.
Background
This is an action for wrongful death and survival action damages arising from a vehicle collision which took place in April 2019 which resulted in the death of Irene Gloria Courselle.
On August 22, 2022, the Court deemed this case related to 22STLC02479.
Defendant James Martin Johnson filed the instant motion to consolidate on November 9, 2022.
Summary
Moving Arguments
Defendant moves to consolidate this case with Mercury Insurance Company v. James Martin Johnson 22STLC02479 on the grounds that the issues of law and fact are common to both actions and many of the same witnesses will testify in both actions.
Opposing Arguments
None.
Legal Standard
California Code of Civil Procedure section 1048 states: “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.”
Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.350, subdivision (a)(1), 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. (2) The motion to consolidate: (A) Is deemed a single motion for the purpose of determining the appropriate filing fee, but memorandums, declarations, and other supporting papers must be filed only in the lowest numbered case; (B) Must be served on all attorneys of record and all non-represented parties in all of the cases sought to be consolidated; and (C) Must have a proof of service filed as part of the motion.
Discussion
Defendant seeks to consolidate the instant case with related case 22STLC02479. The two cases arise from the same vehicle collision and involve common questions of law or fact.
A procedural requirement of a motion to consolidate is that the notice of motion must be filed in each case sought to be consolidated. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.350(a)(1)(C). The Court notes that the instant notice of motion to consolidate was not filed in 22STLC02479. This is in violation of the California Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a)(1)(C). Accordingly, the motion is continued to allow for the filing and service of a notice of motion to consolidate in 22STLC02479.
