Judge Jill Feeney, Case 21STCV16843 2023-01-06 Tentative Ruling

This is an action for negligence and motor vehicle negligence arising from a vehicle collision which took place in July 2019. Plaintiffs Terry Carter and Haydee Kabigting filed their Complaint against Defendants Sona Markosyan and Liana Mkrtchyan on May 5, 2021.

Plaintiffs move to consolidate this matter with the case Carter v. Youmans, et al. 22STCV35776 on the grounds that they both arise from vehicle collisions that took place within a short period of time.

Defendants argue that consolidation is not appropriate because 22STCV35776 involves another collision which took place two years later in May 2021. Additionally, the Court already found that these two cases are not related. Plaintiff also failed to file a notice of related case for nearly two years in violation of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300.

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.

“Cases 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 department, have been related into a single department, or if the cases were already assigned to that department.” (LASC Local Court Rules, Rule 3.3(g)(1).)

Plaintiff requests that the two cases at issue be consolidated for trial on the grounds that the two cases arise from vehicle collisions that took place within a short period of time. Plaintiff argues that the two cases involve common questions of law and are appropriate for consolidation.

As an initial matter, the two cases cannot be consolidated because they belong to different departments. LASC Local Court Rules, rule 3.3(g)(1) provides that only cases in the same department may be consolidated. Here, 22STCV35776 is in Department 28. Additionally, the Court already ruled these cases were not related on December 16, 2022. The Court declines to exercise its discretion to consolidate the two cases.

The two matters do not concern substantially the same facts or questions of law. This matter concerns a vehicle collision which took place in July 2019 whereas 22STCV35776 stems from a vehicle collision which took place in May 2021. These accidents took place years apart involving entirely different defendants. Moreover, the cases only have one common plaintiff meaning each of the cases has a plaintiff that is not a party to the other case.

Consolidation would prejudice both sets of defendants. Trial in 22STCV35776 is set for May 13, 2024, whereas trial in this matter is scheduled much sooner. Moreover, given that there are not common issues sufficient to warrant relating the cases consolidating these two unrelated matters would prejudice both sets of defendants by creating a case that would be impossible to actually try.