Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 22STCV19728, Date: 2024-11-26 Tentative Ruling

On June 15, 2022, at 3:16 PM, Plaintiff Nelson Rojas (“Rojas”) filed Nelson Rojas v. Michael David Gottlieb, et al., LASC Case No. 22STCV19553 (the “Rojas Action”) against Defendants Michael David Gottlieb (“Gottlieb”), CLBR, LLC (“CLBR”), and DOES 1-50, inclusive, alleging a single cause of action for negligence.

On October 30, 2024, in the Rojas Action, Plaintiff Brandon Espinoza, who is the plaintiff in LASC Case No. 22STCV19728, filed notice of related cases indicating that the Rojas Action was related to LASC Case No. 22STCV19728.

On November 21, 2024, a Notice of Settlement of the Entire Case was filed with the Court.

On June 15, 2022, at 2:55 PM, Plaintiff Brandon Espinoza (“Espinoza”) filed Brandon Espinoza v. Michael David Gottlieb, et al., LASC Case No. 22STCV19728 (the “Espinoza Action”) against Defendants Gottlieb, CLBR, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, alleging a single cause of action for negligence.

Also, on November 13, 2023, Defendant and Cross-Complainant Gottlieb filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendant Nelson Rojas and ROES 1-20, alleging causes of action for: (1) Indemnity; and (2) Contribution.

On December 15, 2023, Defendant Gottlieb filed a notice of related case, which indicated that the Espinoza Action was related to the Rojas Action.

On January 23, 2024, the Espinoza Action and the Rojas Action were deemed related, and the Espinoza Action was deemed the lead case. (See Register of Actions in Case No. 22STCV19728.)

On April 24, 2024, Cross-Defendant Rojas filed an answer to the cross-complaint.

On October 29, 2024, in the Espinoza Action, Plaintiff Espinoza filed and served a motion to consolidate and seeks an order consolidating the Espinoza Action and the Rojas Action for all purposes.

On November 1, 2024, in the Rojas Action, Plaintiff Espinoza filed a motion to consolidate.

The motions are substantively identical but for the caption of each motion. Both motions request the same relief of consolidation of the Espinoza Action and the Rojas Action.

On November 5, 2024, the Espinoza Action was reassigned to the Honorable Lee S. Arian in Department 27 at Spring Street Courthouse for all purposes. (11/05/24 Minute Order.) The Rojas Action was deemed the lead case. (11/05/24 Minute Order.)

Although an opposition to the motion to consolidate was not filed in the Espinoza Action, Defendants Gottlieb and CLBR filed an opposition in the Rojas Action. Thus, the Court will treat the opposition filed in the Rojas Action as the operative opposition brief concerning both motions to consolidate.

Also, given that Plaintiff Espinoza filed substantively identical motions in the Espinoza Action and the Rojas Action, the Court will address the motions in this one ruling. Thus, the Court’s order will apply to the motions to consolidate filed in the Espinoza Action and the Rojas Action.

As of November 21, 2024, no reply brief has been filed in either action. Any reply brief was required to have been filed and served at least five court days prior to the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).)

“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).) “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 a trial by jury required by the Constitution or a statute of this state or of the United States.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (b).)

“Coordination of civil actions sharing a common question of fact or law is appropriate if one judge hearing all of the actions . . . will promote the ends of justice taking into account whether the common question of fact or law is predominating and significant to the litigation; the convenience of the parties, witnesses, and counsel; the relative development of the actions and the work product of counsel; the efficient utilization; the calendar of the courts; the disadvantages of duplicative and inconsistent rulings, orders, or judgments; and, the likelihood of settlement of the actions without further litigation should coordination be denied.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 404.1.)¿¿

There are two types of consolidation. (Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1127, 1147.) There is “a consolidation for purposes of trial only, where the two actions remain otherwise separate; and a complete consolidation or consolidation for all purposes, where the two actions are merged into a single proceeding under one case number and result in only one verdict or set of findings and one judgment.” (Ibid., citations omitted.)¿¿

“The purpose of consolidation is merely to promote trial convenience and economy by avoiding duplication of procedure, particularly in the proof of issues common to both actions.” (Estate of Baker (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 471, 485, citation omitted.) “A consolidation of actions does not affect the rights of the parties.” (Ibid.) Consolidation does not require identical causes of action in each case, absolute identity of the parties, or identical allegations. (Ibid.) Where common issues are present in two cases then consolidation is appropriate. (Todd-Stenberg v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 976, 978-79.)¿¿¿

A motion to consolidate “[i]s 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.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a)(2)(A).) Moreover, a motion to consolidate “[m]ust be served on all attorneys of record and all nonrepresented partes in all of the cases sought to be consolidated.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a)(2)(B).)¿¿

Los Angeles County Court Rules, Rule 3.3(g)(1) provides that “[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 in a single department, or if the cases were already assigned to that department.”

Initially, the Court notes that neither of Plaintiff Espinoza’s motions for consolidation were filed with any declarations or evidence in support thereof. “In law and motion practice, factual evidence is supplied to the court by way of declarations.” (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 224.) Given the lack of evidence to make a finding that consolidation is appropriate, the Court finds that Plaintiff Espinoza has not shown that consolidation would prevent duplication of procedure or promote judicial economy.

Even more significantly, given the settlement of the Espinoza Action, no consolidation is necessary. Accordingly, the Motion is denied.

Hon. Lee S. Arian

Judge of the Superior Court