Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 24STCV05033, Date: 2024-08-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV05033    Hearing Date: August 6, 2024    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s motion to consolidate is DENIED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

            On 2/28/2024, Martin Rodriguez (Plaintiff) filed suit against Phoenix Villegas and Wendy Wedding (collectively, Defendants), alleging negligence and property damage.

            On 4/24/2024, Plaintiff moved to consolidate this case with Case. 23STCV18385.

Legal Standard

“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.”¿(Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a).) “A consolidation of actions does not affect the rights of the parties. The purpose of consolidation is merely to promote trial convenience and economy by avoiding duplication of procedure, particularly in the proof of issues common to both actions.”¿ (Wouldridge v. Burns (1968) 265 Cal.App.2d 82, 86.) 

Discussion

California Rules of Court, rule 3.350 sets forth the procedural requirements for bringing a motion to consolidate. The notice of motion 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.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a)(1).) 

Though the motion must be filed in each case sought to be consolidated, “memorandums, declarations, and other supporting papers must be filed only in the lowest numbered case.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a)(2).) All motion documents must be served together with the notice on all attorneys of record and all non-represented parties in all of the cases sought to be consolidated. (Id.) 

            Here, Plaintiff failed to file a notice of motion to consolidate in Case No. 23STCV18385. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is procedurally defective and must be denied.

            Moreover, as noted by Defendant’s opposition, there are a number of other procedural defects with Plaintiff’s motion. For example, the proof of service is unclear as to how the non-represented parties in the Auto Accident Case were served.

            Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to consolidate is denied, without prejudice.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  July    , 2024

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.