Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 22STCV14904, Date: 2024-05-31 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV14904, Date: 2024-05-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV14904 Hearing Date: May 31, 2024 Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

Hearing Date: 5/31/24

CASE NO./NAME: 22STCV14904 TERESA GUZZARDO vs SYMONE GALLEGOS

Moving Party: Plaintiff

Responding Party: Defendants Symone Gallegos, Alamitos Enterprises and Jiffy Lube

Notice: Sufficient

Ruling: MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE IS GRANTED

Background

On May 4, 2022, Plaintiff Teresa Guzzardo filed the present drunk driving case against Defendant Symone Gallegos, case number 22STCV14904. Defendant Symone Gallegos, who was initially in default, obtained relief and filed an answer on February 15, 2024. On April 13, 2023, Plaintiff also filed another case, case number 22STCV08263, arising out of the same incident, against Gallegos' employer, Jiffy Lube, and Alamitos Enterprises (Corporate Defendants). Plaintiff alleges that Gallegos was acting within the scope of her employment when she crashed into Plaintiff’s car and that the Corporate Defendants knew and encouraged Gallegos’ drunk driving. Plaintiff now moves the Court to consolidate the two cases.

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

(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

(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

The Court is not persuaded by Defendant Symone Gallegos’ argument that the cases are so different that consolidating them would not be in the interest of justice and judicial efficiency. Although the cases involve different defendants and distinct legal theories, they arise from the same incident and share substantial common facts. Both cases revolve around the same car accident, the same victims, and the same damages. Plaintiff’s claim against the corporate defendant is partly based on vicarious liability, which naturally depends on the liability of Defendant Gallegos. Therefore, the circumstances surrounding the incident and Defendant Gallegos’ intoxication and employment status are relevant to both cases.

Consolidation will streamline the resolution of related factual disputes and legal questions, such as: Whether Gallegos was drinking and driving within the scope of her employment. Whether she obtained the alcohol from the corporate defendants. Whether the corporate defendants were aware of her drinking and still allowed her to drive. These are common questions of law and fact relevant to both cases.

Both cases will have crossover in witnesses and evidence, including details of the incident, damages, and Gallegos’ actions. Witnesses will testify about the car accident, the extent of the victims' injuries, and the circumstances of Gallegos' intoxication, making separate trials redundant and inefficient. For example, witnesses who saw Gallegos consume alcohol or observed the incident will be critical in both cases. Similarly, evidence such as medical reports detailing the victims' injuries and repair estimates for vehicle damage will be relevant to both cases.

The Court is also not persuaded by the Corporate Defendants’ arguments. As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff introduced a signed stipulation by the Corporate Defendants agreeing to consolidate the cases, raising questions why they filed an opposition to the present motion for consolidation. The Corporate Defendants point to potential procedural missteps by Plaintiffs, such as not informing them about the related case or potential arrangements between Defendant Gallegos and Plaintiff. However, these are not sufficient grounds to deny consolidation. The primary consideration should be the interests of justice and judicial efficiency.

Corporate Defendants raise a concern that if the Court consolidates the two cases, the lower-numbered case, 22STCV14904, will be the leading case. The trial for that case is set for November 2024, which they contend would not allow them sufficient time to conduct discovery or have their motions for summary judgment heard. The Corporate Defendants request the Court to exercise its discretion in managing its calendar and make 23STCV08263 the leading case, with a trial setting conference set for 6/5/2024. However, consistent with Local Rules, the lower-numbered case is the lead case and will stay the lead case. Corporate Defendants may, however, seek a stipulation from the other parties to continue, or, alternatively, if the other parties will not stipulate bring a motion to continue.

In sum, the two cases arise out of the same incident, and some of Plaintiff's claims against the Corporate Defendants are based on vicarious liability, which naturally depends on the liability of Defendant Gallegos. Given the significant overlap in witnesses, evidence, and factual disputes between the two cases, the Court grants Plaintiff's motion to consolidate.

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.