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