Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 22STCP04147, Date: 2024-02-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCP04147    Hearing Date: March 19, 2024    Dept: 25

Hearing Date:                         Thursday, February 15, 2024

Case Name:                             HILLCREST HOMES dba WOODS HEALTH SERVICES v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive

Case No.:                                22STCP04147

Motion:                                   Motion to Consolidate Actions for the Purposes of Trial

Moving Party:                         Defendant California Department of Public Health

Responding Party:                   None

Notice:                                    OK

Tentative Ruling:                    Defendant California Department of Public Health’s Motion to Consolidate Actions for the Purpose of Trial is GRANTED and the following actions are HEREBY CONSOLIDATED FOR ALL PURPOSES.

1.                  Hillcrest Homes dba Woods Health Services v. State of California Department of Public Health, 22STCP04147

2.                  Hillcrest Homes dba Woods Health Services v. State of California Department of Public Health, 23STCP00251

(remains to be the lead case)

ALL FUTURE DOCUMENTS MUST BE FILED UNDER THE CASE NUMBER AND CAPTION OF THE LEAD CASE.  Case numbers on all subsequent filings should be reflected as follows: Lead case number C/W other case number(s). Any future hearing dates in the non-lead case(s) are advanced and taken off calendar.

SERVICE: 

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300)                      OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)                                      OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b))                       OK 

OPPOSITION:          None filed as of March 06, 2024                    [   ] Late          [X] None 

REPLY:                     None filed late as of March 12, 2024             [   ] Late          [X] None 

BACKGROUND

On November 18, 2022, Hillcrest Homes (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action challenging a citation issued by State of California Department of Public Health (“Defendant”) for Plaintiff’s violation of the Long-Term Care, Health and Safety and Security Act of 1973, requesting an order dismissing citation # 95-41511-0018009-S and associated civil penalty.

Defendant filed its General Denial on February 28, 2023.

On May 31, 2023, Defendant filed a Notice of Related Case, Hillcrest Homes, et al. v. California Department of Public Health, et al., 23STCP00251.

On June 2, 2023, The Court found that the following cases, 22STCP04147 and 23STCP00251, are related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a) and identified 22STCP04147 as the lead case.

On October 5, 2023, the Court noted that related Case No. 23STCP00251 (HILLCREST HOMES vs STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH) had not yet been scheduled for hearing.  The Court scheduled hearings for both Petitions for October 12, 2023, and vacated the July 1, 2024, trial date.  

On October 12, 2023, the Court took the Petitions off calendar and set a non-jury trial date for September 10, 2024, as the case was incorrectly designated “Other Civil Petition.”

On January 17, 2024, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Consolidate Actions for the Purposes of Trial. The Court on its own motion continued the hearing on the motion after noting deficiencies in the moving papers and ordered Defendant to file supplemental papers correcting the deficiencies.

On February 23, 2024, Defendant filed supplemental papers in support of the instant motion.

No opposition has been filed.

MOVING PARTY POSITION

            Defendant prays for the Court to issue an order consolidating case numbers 22STCP04147 and 23STCP00251 for the purposes of trial under CCP § 1048(a) because the actions involve similar claims and are pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Defendant argues that consolidating the two actions would avoid unnecessary cost and delay in matters involving the same parties and attorneys. Moreover, the two actions will require the testimony of overlapping percipient and expert witnesses. Defendant finally argues that Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by the consolidation as it would not unduly confuse the Court and the Court would be able to draw only appropriate inferences from both cases when it adjudicates on the merits.

OPPOSITION

            No opposition has been filed.

REPLY

            No reply has been filed.  

ANALYSIS

I.          Legal Standard

California Rules of Court, rule 3.350(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(a)). 

Also, the consolidation statute, Code of Civil Procedure § 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(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.)  

II.        Discussion

Defendant moves to consolidate the following cases: 

1.      Hillcrest Homes dba Woods Health Services v. State of California Department of Public Health, 22STCP04147

2.      Hillcrest Homes dba Woods Health Services v. State of California Department of Public Health, 23STCP00251 

(Mot. p. 3.)  Defendant argues that Case No. 22STCP04147 and Case No. 23STCP00251 involve common questions of law and fact because,

…they are brought under the Long-Term Care Act for the violation of state patient care requirements. These various violations occurred at the same facility, within a six-month period... Due to the prevalence of common issues of fact, the trials in these cases will involve multiple common percipient and expert witnesses.” 

(Gregory A. Schnitzer Decl. ¶ 5.) 

On June 02, 2023, the Court found that cases “22STCP04147 and 23STCP00251, are related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a)” and “22STCP04147 is the lead case.”  (06-02-23 Minute Order.)  Both cases were assigned to Judge Katherine Chilton in Department 25 of the Spring Street Courthouse. (Id.)  Therefore, the Court finds that the consolidation of these two cases is proper and would be in the interest of judicial economy. 

In its prior order, the Court noted that the Notice of Motion did not list the names of the attorneys of record for each party. (02/15/24 Minute Order.) Further the Court found that the Notice of Motion and Motion to Consolidate was not filed in Case No. 23STCP00251 as required under CRC rule 3.350(a)(1)(C). (Id.) The Court notes that since issuing its order, Defendant has since filed a supplemental notice correcting the deficiencies noted in the Court’s February 15th order. (See Suppl. Notice of Motion.)

Having reviewed the instant Motion, filed on February 23, 2024, The Court finds that it now complies with California Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a).  The Supplemental Notice of Motion  lists the names of the attorneys of record for each party and has been filed in all cases listed for consolidation.  Defendant has also filed Proof of Electronic Service of the moving papers. (Suppl. Mot. p. 26.) 

Accordingly, the Court finds that all requirements for consolidation have been satisfied.  Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED.

III.       Conclusion

Defendant California Department of Public Health’s Motion to Consolidate Actions for the Purpose of Trial, is GRANTED and the following actions are HEREBY CONSOLIDATED FOR ALL PURPOSES. 

1.      Hillcrest Homes dba Woods Health Services v. State of California Department of Public Health, 22STCP04147

2.      Hillcrest Homes dba Woods Health Services v. State of California Department of Public Health, 23STCP00251 

ALL FUTURE DOCUMENTS MUST BE FILED UNDER THE CASE NUMBER AND CAPTION OF THE LEAD CASE.  Case numbers on all subsequent filings should be reflected as follows: Lead case number C/W other case number(s). Any future hearing dates in the non-lead case(s) are advanced and taken off calendar.

As to both Cases Non-Jury Trial currently set for 09/10/2024 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 25 of the Spring Street Courthouse, remains on calendar as currently scheduled.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.