Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse

December 23, 2022 

21STCV13491

Related Case: 21STCV22327

Motion to Consolidate filed by Defendant Emily D. Linares Olivares

The motion is granted.

Moving party to provide notice.

This is an action for motor vehicle negligence arising from a vehicle collision which took place in June 2019. Plaintiff Tawny Marie Byrd filed her Complaint against Emily D. Linares Olivares, Rodis A. Medina, and Victor Charles Papke on April 9, 2021.

On June 3, 2021, Victor Charles Papke filed a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendants Emily D. Linares Olivares and Rodis A. Medina.

On January 11, 2022, Plaintiff requested dismissal of Victor Charles Papke from this action. Dismissal was entered on January 18, 2022 and Papke was dismissed with prejudice.

On January 13, 2022, Papke requested to dismiss his Cross-Complaint. The Cross-Complaint was dismissed with prejudice on January 18, 2022.

On August 17, 2022, Defendant Linares’s motion to consolidate was denied on the grounds that the two cases were not pending in the same court.

On September 19, 2022, the Court determined this case was related to 21STCV22327.

On September 30, 2022, Linares filed the instant motion to consolidate.

On November 21, 2022, the Court continued the hearing on this matter to allow Defendant to file a notice of motion in the related case.

Moving Arguments

Linares moves to consolidate this case 21STCV13491 (“Byrd Action”) with Richard Jackson v. Emily Linares, et al. 21STCV22327 (“Jackson Action”). Linares alleges that these cases arise from the same vehicle collision in January 2019. The Court has already ordered these actions related. 

Opposing Arguments

None.

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.

 

Linares seeks to consolidate the instant case with related case 21STCV22327. The two cases arise from the same vehicle collision and involve common questions of law or fact. 

The Court previously noted that the notice of motion was only filed in 21STCV13491. Linares filed the notice of motion in 21STCV22327on December 8, 2022. 

The factors weigh in favor of granting the motion. 

First, trial in both matters is scheduled within June 2023. Second, 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 the same vehicle collision and involve common questions of law or fact. Third, it does not appear consolidation would adversely affect the rights of any party because no party opposed this motion and there are no facts to suggest that any party’s rights would be adversely affected.

Accordingly, the motion is granted.