Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 21STCV43219, Date: 2023-05-11 Tentative Ruling

On November 23, 2021, Plaintiff Luis Queche filed this action (Case No. 21STCV43219) against City of Los Angeles and Sean McDonald for injuries arising out of a motor vehicle collision occurring May 26, 2021.

Previously, on August 5, 2021, Plaintiff filed another action before this Court, captioned Luis Queche v. Josheulo Mondragon Aguilar, Case No. 21STCV28863, for injuries arising out of a motor vehicle collision occurring April 7, 2020. Plaintiff filed a Notice of Related Case on December 23, 2022. The Court found that the cases 21STCV28863 and 21STCV43219 were not related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300, subdivision (a).

On December 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed this motion to consolidate this action, Case No. 21STCV43219, with Case No. 21STCV28863 on grounds that both involve motor vehicle accidents that caused personal injury.

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).)

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 notice of 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. Plaintiff’s notice motion does not contain the captions of all the cases sought to be consolidated, with the lowest numbered case shown first. Nor is the notice of motion filed in Case No. 21STCV28863. Case 21STV43219 is not the low numbered case.[1]

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.

[1] In addition to the errors noted in this order, the Court further notes that Plaintiff’s motion and supporting declaration erroneously characterize the two cases at-issue as slip and fall incidents and curiously include the name of a plaintiff not identified in either case. Should Plaintiff seek to consolidate these actions consistent with this order, the Court directs Plaintiff’s counsel to rectify the foregoing issues an explain how two separate incidents on two different dates alleging different set of circumstances should be consolidated. The Court will not guess at the grounds upon which Plaintiff seeks to consolidate these actions.