Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 22STCV29466, Date: 2024-02-06 Tentative Ruling

This action arises from the totaling of Plaintiff Abdulmalik Abdan’s (“Plaintiff”) 2012 Audi A6 (the “Subject Vehicle”) by Defendant Valet-It Parking Services (“VIPS”). On September 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant VIPS and DOES 1 to 30, alleging causes of action for: (1) general negligence and (2) motor vehicle. The complaint alleges, in part, that on September 2, 2021, Defendant VIPS negligently parked the Subject Vehicle in an improper parking spot and thereafter Defendant VIPS crashed another vehicle into the Subject Vehicle. (Complaint, p.4.)

On November 4, 2022, Plaintiff filed an Amendment to Complaint which identified Khaled Hawary (“Hawary”) as DOE 1.

On January 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed and served the instant unopposed motion to consolidate the instant action with Wawanesa General Insurance Company vs. Valet-It Parking Services, LASC Case No. 23STLC00476 (the “Wawanesa Action”) for all purposes (the “Motion”). The Motion was served on all interested parties including Defendant VIPS; however, Defendant VIPS has not been served with the summons and complaint in this action

On January 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Related Case indicating that the instant action and the Wawanesa Action are related.

On January 31, 2024, the Court issued an Order re: Related Cases. The Court found that the instant action and the Wawanesa Action are related and stated that the instant action is the lead case. (01/31/24 Minute Order.)

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.)

In support of the Motion, Plaintiff’s counsel, Yeva Haroutunian, Esq. (“Haroutunian”), declares that the instant action was commenced on September 9, 2022, and the Wawanesa Action was commenced on January 20, 2023. (Haroutunian Decl., ¶¶ 3-4.) Both actions involve claims for negligence and property damage to vehicles involved in the same collision at 6200 Variel Avenue, Woodland Hills, CA 91367. (Id., ¶ 5.) Counsel attests that consolidation of the actions will avoid the risk of inconsistent judgments, reduce the costs and delays resulting from multiple trials, and conserve judicial resources. (Id., ¶ 6.) Counsel states that consolidation will neither unduly complicate the trial of this action nor result in any confusion because both actions involve the same witnesses and evidence. (Id., ¶ 7.) Counsel indicates that consolidation is necessary because both cases involve the same parties and subject matter. (Id., ¶ 8.)

The complaint in the Wawanesa Action is attached as Exhibit 2 to Haroutunian’s declaration in support of the Motion and is therefore before the Court. The Court finds that the instant action and the Wawanesa Action both arise from the September 2, 2021, incident where the parties’ vehicles were allegedly damaged due to the actions of Defendant VIPS. In fact, the complaint in the Wawanesa Action raises a cause of action for general negligence and references Plaintiff. (Haroutunian Decl., Exhibit 2.)

Thus, the negligence of Defendant VIPS is at issue in this action and the Wawanesa Action. Both cases concern Plaintiff and Defendant VIPS and arise from the same incident. Also, the Court has deemed the instant action as related to the Wawanesa Action. 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. The Court finds that consolidation is appropriate. The Motion is therefore GRANTED.

The Court GRANTS the Motion and consolidates the instant action and the Wawanesa Action for all purposes.

Further, based on its review of the case files in these consolidated actions, the Court finds that Defendant VIPS has not been served with the summons and complaint. The Court therefore sets an OSC re: failure to file proof of service as to the summons and complaint for February XX, 2024, at XXXX.

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