Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 19STCV29642, Date: 2023-01-27 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 19STCV29642 Hearing Date: January 27, 2023 Dept: 27
SUPERIOR COURT
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY
OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
|
DARRELL DEE SMITH, Plaintiff, vs.
ORTAL BOCHBOUT,
Defendant. |
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
CASE NO.: 19STCV29642
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
ACTIONS
Dept. 27 1:30 p.m. January 27, 2023 |
I.
Background
On August 21, 2019, plaintiff
Darrell Dee Smith (“Plaintiff”)
filed this action against defendant Ortal Bochbout (“Defendant”)
seeking damages for personal injuries and property damage arising from a motor
vehicle collision that occurred on December 24, 2018. Trial is scheduled for
May 23, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. 27.
On
December 24, 2020, Bochbout filed a separate action before the Honorable Jill
Feeney in Department 30 against Smith seeking damages for personal injuries and
property damage arising from the same accident. That action was captioned Ortal Bochbout v. Darrell Smith (CASE NO. 20STCV49197). On
January 7, 2022, the parties submitted a stipulation to consolidate the two
actions. However, the Court did not sign the stipulation. Trial in that action
is scheduled for May 11, 2023 at 8:30 a.m.
On
September 22, 2022, Defendant filed this motion to consolidate the two actions.
Defendant argues that both actions arise out of the same automobile accident
and are pending in Los Angeles Superior Court. Defendants move pursuant to Code
of Civil Procedure section 1048(a) and Rules of Court, Rule 3.350.
Plaintiff
did not file an opposition.
II.
Legal Standard
California Rules of Court, rule 3.350, subdivision (a)
states in relevant part:
(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.
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350, subd. (a)).
Unless otherwise provided in the order granting a motion to
consolidate, the lowest numbered case in the consolidated case is the lead
case. CRC, rule 3.350, subd. (b).
Additionally, the consolidation
statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 1048, states in relevant part:
(a) 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.
(b) The court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid
prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and
economy, may order a separate trial of any cause of action, including a cause of
action asserted in a cross-complaint, or of any separate issue or of any number of
causes of action or
issues, preserving the right of trial by jury required by the Constitution or a statute of this state or of the United States.
(Code Civ.
Proc., § 1048, subd. (a).)
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. (See Fellner v. Steinbaum (1955) 132 Cal.App.2d 509, 511.)
III.
Discussion
Plaintiff Darrell Dee Smith (“Plaintiff”) seeks to consolidate this action and Ortal
Bochbout v. Darrell Smith (“Bochbout”), CASE NO. 20STCV49197, on the basis
that both actions arise out of the same incident. (Mot., Decl. Of Marjorie
Motooka, para. 4.) Indeed, both actions arise out of the same December 24, 2018 automobile accident at the intersection of Winnetka Avenue and Victory
Boulevard in Los Angeles, California. (Mot., Decl. Of Marjorie Motooka, para.
4.) Plaintiff points out that in each case the plaintiff is alleging personal
injury, property damage, and other damages according to proof sustained from
the same car accident. (Mot., lines 10-13.) Thus, both actions involve common
questions of law and fact.
The Court finds the consolidation of the two cases is
proper and in the interest of judicial economy. The Court is inclined to grant
this Motion, however, a notice of motion to consolidate was not filed in Ortal
Bochbout v. Darrell Smith (“Bochbout”), CASE NO. 20STCV49197, as is
required by rule 3.350(1)(C).
IV. CONCLUSION
The
court will CONTINUE the hearing until ________ to allow time for the moving
party to file the notice of consolidation in the matter pending before
Department 30. Moving party must provide proof of the filing of the notice of
consolidation at least five days prior to the new hearing date.
Moving
party to give notice.
Parties
who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org
indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions
provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the
tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may
nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all
other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the
hearing to argue. If the Court does not
receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling
and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion,
adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.
Dated this 27th day of
January 2023
|
|
|
|
|
Hon. Kerry Bensinger Judge of the
Superior Court |