Judge: Jill Feeney, Case: 21STCV17687, Date: 2023-04-14 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV17687 Hearing Date: April 14, 2023 Dept: 30
Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse
April 14, 2023
21STCV17687
Related Case: 22STCV23298
Motion to Consolidate filed by Defendants Theresa Lynn Thomasulo and Daniel L. Ross
DECISION
The parties are ordered to appear to set a continued hearing date. This will be the last continuance of this matter.
The notice of motion must be filed in the related case at least five court days in advance of the continued hearing date.
Moving party to provide notice.
Background
This is an action for negligence arising from a vehicle collision which took place in July 2020. Plaintiff Alfred Mathew Fogarty filed his Complaint against Defendants Theresa Lynn Thomasulo and Daniel L. Ross on May 11, 2021.
On September 1, 2022, the Court deemed this case related to 22STCV23298.
Defendants filed the instant motion to consolidate on November 14, 2022.
Summary
Moving Arguments
Plaintiffs move to consolidate this case with Ivan Adolfo Pascual Goni, et al. v. Theresa Lynn Thomasulo, et al. 22STCV23298 on the grounds that both cases involve common questions of law or fact, are pending in the same court, are related, and involve the same vehicle collision.
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
Defendants seek to consolidate the instant case with related case 22STCV23298. The two cases arise from the same vehicle collision and involve common questions of law or fact.
On March 23, 2023, the Court continued the hearing on this motion to allow Plaintiffs to file a notice of motion to consolidate in the related case 22STCV23298.
On April 6, 2023, Defendants filed a new motion to consolidate which was identical to the motion filed in November 2022 in 21STCV17687. A notice of motion was again not filed in 22STCV23298.
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). Here, Defendants again failed to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a)(1)(C). Accordingly, the motion is continued until Defendants file a notice of motion to consolidate in 22STCV23298.
