Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 21STCV13910, Date: 2024-10-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV13910    Hearing Date: October 3, 2024    Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE AND MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

Hearing Date: 10/3/24 

CASE NO./NAME: 21STCV13910 DORIS FAY WILLIAMS, AN INDIVIDUAL vs DILIP BHAKTA

Moving Party: Defendant DILIP BHAKTA

Responding Party: Plaintiff 

Notice: Sufficient 

Ruling: MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE AND MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL ARE DENIED.

Legal Standard 

California Rule of Court 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. Rule of Court 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.)

The present motion failed to comply with the standards set forth under Rule 3.350. First, the notice of motion did not list all named parties in each case, the names of those who have appeared, or the names of their respective attorneys of record. Second, it failed to include the captions of all the cases sought to be consolidated, with the lowest-numbered case listed first. Third, the notice was not filed in each case sought to be consolidated. Without this information, the Court cannot determine whether all parties in every case have been properly served. Thus, the motion to consolidate is DENIED.

As for the trial continuance, the trial in the instant action is currently scheduled for November 25, 2024. Defendant seeks a continuance on the basis that written discovery and depositions have not been completed in the related actions. The two related cases were both filed in 2022, but Defendant has not specified which related case has outstanding discovery, nor has Defendant provided an explanation as to why discovery has not been completed in cases that have been pending since 2022. Furthermore, Defendant has failed to articulate how, if at all, the incomplete discovery in the related cases would impact the lead case. Additionally, Defendant has not addressed the various factors for a trial continuance under California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332(c) and (d).

Defendant has provided minimal information for the Court to find good cause for granting the continuance. Therefore, the request for continuance is DENIED.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept27@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.

Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.

If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion.