Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 22STCV26893, Date: 2024-02-22 Tentative Ruling

This action arises from a motor vehicle collision that occurred on June 28, 2021. On August 18, 2022, Plaintiff Robert Foster (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Jose Guadalupe Escobedo (“Escobedo”), Escobedo Trucking LLC (“Escobedo Trucking”), R&B Fresh Express, Inc. (“R&B”) (collectively “Defendants”) and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, alleging a single cause of action for negligence.

On September 21, 2022, Defendant R&B filed a cross-complaint against Defendants Escobedo and Escobedo Trucking, as well as ROES 1 through 25, inclusive, alleging causes of action for: (1) equitable indemnity, (2) contribution, and (3) declaratory relief.

On September 26, 2022, Defendants Escobedo and Escobedo Trucking filed a cross-complaint against MOES 1 through 10, inclusive, alleging causes of action for: (1) indemnity, (2) contribution, and (3) declaratory relief.

On June 1, 2023, a Notice of Related Case was filed indicating that the instant action was related to the case of Thomas Raymond Stahl v. Jose Guadalupe Escobedo, LASC Case No. 21STCV41754 (the “Stahl Action”).

On June 21, 2023, the Court issued an order deeming the instant action and the Stahl Action as related cases with the Stahl Action being deemed the lead case. (06/21/23 Minute Order.)

On January 25, 2024, Plaintiff filed and served the instant unopposed motion to consolidate the instant action and the Stahl Action (the “Motion”). Any opposition to the Motion was required to have been filed and served at least nine court days prior to the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).)

Code Civ. Proc. § 1048(a) provides that “[w]hen actions involve 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.” “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., citation omitted.) Consolidation does not require identical causes of action in each case, absolute identity of the parties, or identical allegations. (Ibid.) 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.)

“Coordination of civil actions sharing a common question of fact or law is appropriate if one judge hearing all of the actions for all purposes in a selected site or sites 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 of judicial facilities and manpower; 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.”

In support of the Motion, Plaintiff’s counsel, Jason C. Kolbe (“Kolbe”), declares that this case stems from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on June 28, 2021. (Kolbe Decl., ¶ 2.) Two cases are pending in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles and both actions involve the same facts and same questions of law. (Kolbe Decl., ¶ 2.) Counsel declares that the Stahl Action is related to a series of motor vehicle accidents that occurred on June 28, 2021 at or on the I-210 East Freeway. (Kolbe Decl., ¶ 3.) Plaintiff Thomas Raymond Stahl alleges causes of action for motor vehicle and general negligence. (Kolbe Decl., ¶ 3; Exhibit A.)

The Court finds that the instant action and the Stahl Action arise from the same series of motor vehicle accidents that occurred on June 28, 2021. As such, there are common questions of law and fact present in both actions. In fact, both actions raise causes of action for negligence and both actions name Defendant Escobedo as a defendant. The Court therefore finds that consolidation of the instant action and the Stahl Action is appropriate to promote judicial economy and to avoid duplication in procedure. Moreover, given that the Motion is unopposed, there is an inference it has merit under Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to consolidate the instant action and the Stahl Action.

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.

Hon. Lee S. Arian

Judge of the Superior Court