Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 23STCV15401, Date: 2024-11-15 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV15401, Date: 2024-11-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV15401 Hearing Date: November 15, 2024 Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27¿

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE¿

Hearing Date: 11/15/24¿¿

CASE NO./NAME: 23STCV15401 YAFA HAKIM, AN INDIVIDUAL vs BEVERLY HILLS REHABILITATION CENTRE et al.

Moving Party: Plaintiff Yafa Hakim

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¿

¿¿¿

(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.)¿

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: Yafa Hakim v. Beverly Hills Rehabilitation Center, LLC, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 23STCV15401
Secondary Case: Said Hakim v. Beverly Hills Rehabilitation Center, LLC, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 24STCV04025

Both cases are assigned to Department 27 and were deemed related on February 22, 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 and fact pending before the Court. Both cases arise from the same trip-and-fall incident. Plaintiff Yafa Hakim sustained personal injuries from the incident and filed Yafa Hakim v. Beverly Hills Rehabilitation Center, LLC, et al., Case No. 23STCV15401. Plaintiff Said Hakim, Yafa Hakim’s husband, is making a claim for loss of consortium due to Yafa’s injuries from the same incident, filed as Said Hakim v. Beverly Hills Rehabilitation Center, LLC, et al., Case No. 24STCV04025.

Both actions involve the same defendant, Beverly Hills Rehabilitation Center, LLC, and other associated parties. Both cases involve overlapping factual and legal issues, including premises liability and the injuries and damages resulting from the incident. The claims share common witnesses, evidence, and questions of liability, and both cases will likely require similar or identical expert testimony, such as medical experts addressing Plaintiff Yafa Hakim’s injuries and their impact on Plaintiff Said Hakim’s loss of consortium claim.

Consolidation would promote judicial economy by avoiding duplicative discovery, trials, and inconsistent rulings. No opposition is filed. Accordingly, the motion is granted.

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 without leave.