Judge Jill Feeney, Case 21STCV41449 2023-02-02 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Jill Feeney, Case: 21STCV41449, Date: 2023-02-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV41449 Hearing Date: February 2, 2023 Dept: 30

Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse

February 2, 2023

21STCV41449

Related Case: 22STLC00299

Motion to Consolidate filed by Defendant Robert Jay Schechter

DECISION

The motion is granted.

Counsel for Plaintiff in limited Case No. 22STLC00299 must pay the reclassification fee within 20-days. If Fees are not paid within 20-days, the Court will set an Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions for Failure to Pay said fees.

The Court designates 21STCV41449 (Sureya Khalmuratova vs. Robert Jay Schechter) as the lead case. All future documents must be filed under LEAD Case No. 21STCV41449.

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.

The Jury Trial set for 07/18/2023 and the Order to Show Cause set for 01/21/2025 currently scheduled in NON-LEAD case No. 22STLC00299 are advanced and vacated.

As to Both Cases: the Final Status Conference set for 04/26/2023 and Trial set for 05/10/2023 remain on calendar as currently scheduled.

Moving party to provide notice and to file proof of service of such notice to all parties in both cases.

Background

This is an action for negligence arising from a vehicle collision which took place in January 2020. Plaintiff Sureya Khalmuratova filed her Complaint against Defendant Robert Jay Schechter on November 10, 2021.

On May 24, 2022, the Court deemed this case related to 22STLC00299.

Defendant filed the instant motion to consolidate on August 8, 2022.

On December 20, 2022, the Court continued the hearing on this matter to allow Defendant to file the notice of motion in STLC00299.

Defendant filed a notice of motion in 22STLC00299 on December 22, 2022.

Summary

Moving Arguments

Defendant moves to consolidate this case with Mubina Khalmuratova v. Robert Schechter 22STLC00299 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

Plaintiff Sureya Khalmuratova argues that Defendant’s motion is procedurally defective. Additionally, Sureya argues that Mubina would be prejudiced if the cases are consolidated because she would have to pay expert fees she would not have otherwise needed to pay. Finally, Sureya argues that judicial economy would not be served because Sureya was more heavily injured than Mubina and the only issue at trial is damages.

Reply Arguments

Defendant argues that the motion is not procedurally defective. Defendant also argues that Mubina did not oppose the motion and is thus not prejudiced by consolidation. Lastly, Defendant argues that he has not conceded liability in these matters.

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.

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. (Sanchez v. Superior Court (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 1391, 1396.)

Discussion

Defendant seeks to consolidate the instant case with related case 22STLC00299. The two cases arise from the same vehicle collision and involve common questions of law and fact.

The Court previously noted that the notice of motion was only filed in 21STCV41449. Defendant filed the notice of motion in 22STLC00299 on December 22, 2022.

The factors in these matters weigh in favor of granting the motion.

First, granting consolidation would not significantly delay trial in either case. Trial in 22STLC00299 is set for July 18, 2023. Trial in 22STCV41449 is set for trial on May 10, 2023. There is not reason that consolidation would significantly delay these matters.

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. The collision occurred on January 29, 2020. (Ng Decl., ¶2.) Plaintiff Mubina Khalmuratova was the driver of the vehicle and Plaintiff Sureya Khalmuratova was a passenger in the same vehicle. (Id.) Both cases involve the same witnesses, investigating police officers, emergency personnel, and many overlapping medical providers. (Id.)

Third, it does not appear consolidation would adversely affect the rights of any party. Plaintiff Sureya Khalmuratova argues that Mubina Khalmuratova would spend more on litigation-related expenses, including expert witnesses she would not have otherwise retained. However, Mubina did not oppose this motion. Additionally, Defendant would have more litigation expenses if these cases are tried separately. Sureya’s argument that liability is the only real issue at trial is not well taken. Defendant denies having made any admissions as to liability and there are no facts suggesting that liability will not be contested. This factor does not weigh strongly for or against consolidation.

Sureya also argues that Defendant’s motion is procedurally defective because if fails to list the names of the attorneys of record and Defendant’s first name. However, the notice of motion and motion both state that Mubina’s attorney of record is Robert Haralambopoulos and Sureya's attorneys of record are Boris Koron and Daniel Podolsky. Defendant’s full name is also included in the caption for the notice of motion. Defendant’s motion is not procedurally defective.

Because the two Plaintiffs were in the same car when the accident took place and the two cases share nearly identical facts and witnesses, the factors weigh in favor of consolidation. Accordingly, the motion is granted.

==========================================

NOTE: Any Party intending to proceed by jury trial must post jury fees forthwith.

To understand the Procedures in the Personal Injury (PI) Courts, Counsel are directed to carefully review the Los Angeles Superior Court's "Eighth Amended Standing Order for Procedures In The Personal Injury HUB Courts Effective October 10, 2022 and filed on September 20, 2022” available on the Court's website: [www.lacourt.org PI Courts link)(Eighth Amended Standing Order Re: Personal Injury Procedures – Central District].