Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV37039, Date: 2024-11-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV37039    Hearing Date: November 15, 2024    Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27 

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE 

Hearing Date: 11/15/24¿ 

CASE NO./NAME: 22STCV37039 MARICELA MUNOZ, et al. vs RODNEY DEWAYNE MARSHALL

Moving Party: Plaintiff

Responding Party: Unopposed

Notice: Sufficient¿ 

Ruling: GRANTED

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 

(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. 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.) 

Los Angeles County Court Rules, Rule 3.3(g) states, “Cases 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 into a single department, or if the cases were already assigned to that department.”¿ 

Discussion

The two cases to be consolidated are:

·         Lead Case: Maricela Munoz, et al. v. Rodney Dewayne Marshall, et al., Case No. 22STCV37039

·         Secondary Case: Roslyn Anderson, et al. v. Alejandro Chavez, et al., Case No. 23STCV08476

Both cases are in Department 27 and were ordered to be related on June 11, 2024.

The moving party has complied with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.350 by:

·         Listing all named parties in each case, the names of those who have appeared, and the names of their respective attorneys of record;

·         Including the captions of all cases to be consolidated, with the lowest-numbered case shown first;

·         Filing the motion in each case sought to be consolidated;

·         Serving the motion on all attorneys of record and all self-represented parties in each case to be consolidated.

The Court finds that the actions involve common questions of law or fact pending before the Court. Both cases arise from the same two-vehicle collision, with parties in both cases being drivers or passengers of the involved vehicles. Both cases require identical factual and legal inquiries, particularly regarding liability and comparative negligence. There is shared admissible evidence, including witness testimony, and similar jury instructions applicable to both cases. Consolidation would therefore conserve court resources, prevent duplicate depositions, and avoid the risk of inconsistent verdicts. Furthermore, no opposition was filed. Thus, the motion is granted.