Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 20STCV48638, Date: 2023-03-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV48638    Hearing Date: March 15, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            BACKGROUND   

On December 18, 2020, plaintiff Nathan Thomas Eckloff (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Walter Joseph Harris, J.J. Brown Company a.k.a. JJ Brown Company, and Does 1 to 100 (collectively, “Defendants”) arising out of a motor vehicle collision that occurred on January 8, 2019.  

          On September 26, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Related Case.  On September 27, 2022, the Court found that cases 20STCV48638 and 22STCV26023 were related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300, subdivision (a).  20STCV48638 is the lead case (low-number).

Plaintiff now moves to consolidate this action, Case No. 20STCV48638, with Case No. 22STCV26023 on grounds that both involve motor vehicle accidents that caused personal injury.

No opposition has been filed.

II.      LEGAL STANDARD 

Code of Civil Procedure section 1048 states, in pertinent part: “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).) 

California Rules of Court, Rule 3.350 provides, “[a] notice of motion to consolidate must: (A) [l]ist all named parties in each case, the names of those who have appeared, and the names of their respective attorneys of record; (B) [c]ontain the captions of all the cases sought to be consolidated, with the lowest numbered case shown first; and (C) [b]e filed in each case sought to be consolidated.”  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350, subd. (a)(1).)  Rule 3.350 further provides, “[t]he motion to consolidate: (A) [i]s deemed a single motion for the purposes of determining the appropriate filing fee, but memorandums, declarations, and other supporting papers must be filed only in the lowest numbered case; (B) [m]ust be served on all attorneys of record and all nonrepresented parties in all of the cases sought to be consolidated; and (C) [m]ust have a proof of service filed as part of the motion.”  (Id., rule 3.350, subd. (a)(2).) 

Further, Los Angeles County Court Rules, Rule 3.3, subd. (g) states, “[c]ases 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 departments, have been related into a single department, or if the cases were already assigned to that department.”  (Super. Ct. L.A. County, Local Rules, rule 3.3, subd. (g).) 

III.    DISCUSSION

The Court finds Plaintiff has not complied with the procedural requirements outlined in California Rules of Court, Rule 3.350, subdivision (a)(1).  Plaintiff’s motion to consolidate (“Motion”) does not include a list of all named parties in each case, the names of those who have appeared, or the names of their respective attorneys of record.  Nor has Plaintiff filed notice of the Motion in Case No. 22STCV26023. 

IV.     CONCLUSION

The motion to consolidate is CONTINUED to April 11, 2023 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 27 of Spring Street Courthouse to allow Plaintiff to correct the deficiencies noted in this Order.  Trial is scheduled for July 20, 2023 and the Final Status Conference is scheduled for July 6, 2023 in this matter.

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 15th day of March 2023