Judge Jill Feeney, Case 21STCV43969 2022-09-28 Tentative Ruling

This is an action for negligence, negligence under a theory of negligence per se, and negligent entrustment arising from a vehicle collision which took place in December 2019. Plaintiff Maliheh Shajari filed his Complaint against Defendants Matthew W. Svolos and Nanette Svolos on December 2, 2021.

Plaintiff moves to consolidate this matter with the case Maliheh Shajari and Alia Abuhassan v. Rebecca Lynn Davoren and John T. Davoren 21STLCV00329, which is assigned to Department 26 of the Spring Street Courthouse. Plaintiff argues that consolidation is appropriate because the matters involve common questions of law and fact. Additionally, consolidation for trial will avoid unnecessary cost and delay and avoid the risk of inconsistent adjudications of the same facts. Plaintiff alleges that two cases arise from the same accident.

The Svolos Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s motion on the grounds that the two cases are not related. Defendants point out that the Court has already issued an order that the matters are not related. Defendant also argues that there are no common facts between the two matters. Lastly, Defendant argues that consolidation would prejudice both sets of Defendants because one case is in unlimited jurisdiction while the other is in limited jurisdiction. Defendant claims that consolidation would force both sets of defendants to retain additional experts, adding to the expense and time required of both sets of defendants and the Court.

The Davoren Defendants also oppose Plaintiff’s motion because the two cases do not share common issues of law or fact. Additionally, the Davoren Defendants argue that consolidation would prejudice them because their case is in limited jurisdiction. Consolidation into unlimited jurisdiction would require more discovery and pose undue expense. Additionally, Plaintiff’s attempt to consolidate the two cases in limited jurisdiction was denied. The Davoren matter is already near trial.

In reply, Plaintiff argues that the matters are related because they involve similar claims for damages arising from the same showing of injury caused to Plaintiff and the same medical providers. Plaintiff argues that consolidation will prevent duplicative costs in discovery and expert testimony. Plaintiff also alleges that his previous attempt to consolidate was rejected in error. Lastly, Plaintiff argues that consolidation will not prejudice Defendant because it will not increase the cost of discovery.

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 in order to preserve judicial resources, avoid unnecessary costs and delays for all parties, and avoid inconsistent outcomes for Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges the cases involve similar questions of law and fact.

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, 21STCV23413 is in Department 32. The Court declines to exercise its discretion to consolidate the two cases. The Court also notes that Plaintiff appears to have attempted consolidation in limited jurisdiction which was denied. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is denied.

The two matters do not concern substantially the same facts or questions of law. The Svolos matter concerns a vehicle collision which took place in September 2019 whereas the Davoren matter stems from a vehicle collision which took place November 20, 2019. (Motion, p.3.) These accidents took place two months apart involving entirely different defendants. Additionally, Plaintiff’s daughter is included as a plaintiff in the Davoren matter and not in the Svolos matter. The only common question of law is apportionment of damages.

Consolidation would prejudice both sets of defendants. Trial in the Svolo matter is set for June 1, 2023 whereas trial in the Davoren matter is imminent, meaning discovery is complete. (Davoren Opp., p.4.) Additionally, the Davoren matter is in limited jurisdiction, meaning discovery was limited in the Davoren matter. If the cases are consolidated, the Davoren Defendants would need to perform additional discovery, creating undue expense. Additionally, both sets of defendants would have to perform additional discovery to defend against each other.