Judge Jill Feeney, Case 21STCV06178 2023-03-29 Tentative Ruling

The motion is granted.

The Court designates 21STCV06178 as the lead case. All future documents must be filed under 21STCV06178 (Sestina Dalmas vs. Walmart, Inc.). Case numbers on all subsequent filings should be reflected under the lead case.

ALL FUTURE DOCUMENTS MUST BE FILED UNDER THE LEAD CASE NUMBER AND CAPTION OF THE LEAD CASE. Case numbers on all subsequent filings should be reflected as follows: Lead case number c/w other case number(s).

Any presently calendared motions in cases other than the lead case shall be continued to the newly assigned Department and shall be re-noticed and re-scheduled through the Courts online reservation system to the next available date in Department SSC-30 by the moving party.

This is an action for premises liability arising from a slip and fall incident which took place in August 2020. Plaintiff Sestina Dalmas filed her Complaint against Walmart, Inc. on February 16, 2023.

On March 3, 2023, the Court continued the hearing on this matter to allow Plaintiffs to file a notice of motion to consolidate in the related case. Plaintiffs filed the notice of motion and motion in the related case on March 7, 2023.

Defendant moves to consolidate this case, 21STCV06178, with Sestina Dalma v. Walmart, Inc. 22STCV27500 on the grounds that both cases involve common questions of law or fact, are pending in the same court, are related, and involve similar slip and fall incidents.

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.

The granting or denial of the motion to consolidate “rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, and will not be reversed except upon a clear showing of abuse of discretion.” (Weil & Brown, ¶ 12:361.) While each case presents its own facts and circumstances, judges are typically concerned with the following: (1) “whether granting consolidation would delay the trial of any of the cases involved, or whether discovery in one or more of the cases has proceeded without all parties present;” (2) “whether joining the actions involved would make the trial too confusing or complex for a jury;” and (3) “whether consolidation would adversely affect the rights of any party.” (Id., ¶ 12:362.)

There are two types of consolidation: a complete consolidation resulting in a single action, and a consolidation of separate actions for trial. Under the former procedure, which may be utilized where the parties are identical and the causes could have been joined, the pleadings are regarded as merged, one set of findings is made, and one judgment is rendered. In a consolidation for trial, the pleadings, verdicts, findings and judgments are kept separate; the actions are simply tried together for the sake of convenience and judicial economy.

Defendant seeks to consolidate the instant case with a related case, 22STCV27500, on the grounds that both cases involve common questions of law or fact, are pending in the same court, are related, and involve similar slip and fall incidents.

Granting consolidation would delay trial in 21STCV06178. Trial in the related case, 22STCV27500, is set for February 2024 while trial in 21STCV06178 is set for July 2023. Although trial in 21STCV06178 would be delayed seven months, both parties have been present for discovery in both cases. Additionally, the other factors weigh in favor of granting the motion.

Joining trials would not make trial too complex or confusing for a jury. The Court has already ruled these matters are related because they arise from very similar slip and fall incidents and involve common questions of law or fact. In 21STCV06178, Plaintiff alleges she fell on water in the produce department at a Walmart store located in Compton, California. (Motion, p.2.) In the second case, 22STCV27500, Plaintiff alleges she slipped and fell near the frozen food aisle of another Walmart located in Torrance, California. (Id.) Because these incidents involve substantially similar facts and the same parties, joining trials will not make trial too complex or confusing for a jury.