Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 21STCV11513, Date: 2023-10-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV11513    Hearing Date: November 8, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

BACKGROUND

On March 25, 2021, Plaintiff Markus Derrell Smith (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Pluria William Marshall, III (“Defendant”), Wave Community Newspapers, Inc., Anthony Garland, Markus Smith, and Does 1 through 50.

On September 19, 2023, Defendant filed the instant motion to consolidate this case with Markus Derrell Smith v. Pluria William Marshall et. al, Case No. 21STCV07846, filed on February 26, 2021, in Los Angeles County Superior Court (general jurisdiction), assigned to Judge Lee S. Arian of Department 27. This motion is unopposed.

Defendant simultaneously moved in 21STCV07846 to consolidate that case with the instant one. That motion is set for hearing on November 28, 2023.

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)). Also, 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.)  

DISCUSSION

Defendant moves to consolidate the instant action with Case No. 21STCV07846 on the grounds that there are common issues of law and fact pending before the Court and that the interests of justice require that the cases be consolidated and tried together. Both matters concern a four-vehicle accident that occurred on April 4, 2018, involving vehicles driven by (1) Pluria Marshall III, (2) Markus Derrell Smith, (3) Anthony James Garland, and (4) Eric Burt. Both cases seek damages for motor vehicle negligence. Thus, there are common questions of law and fact between the cases. Additionally, Defendant has served all the parties to each action. Therefore, 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.

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 8th day of November 2023