Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 20STCV49554, Date: 2023-07-20 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 20STCV49554, Date: 2023-07-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV49554 Hearing Date: July 20, 2023 Dept: C

MUNOZ v. MAGGIE’S PUB

CASE NO.: 20STCV49554

HEARING: 07/20/23

Defendant TELEGRAPH VENTURES LLC’s unopposed Motion to Consolidate is GRANTED. CCP §1048. This action, Munoz v. Maggie’s Pub (20STCV49554) is hereby consolidated with Herrera-Quintero v. Maggie’s Enterprises, Inc. (21STCV34882), with the subject action acting as the lead case. C.R.C 3.3350. All dates in case number 21STCV34882are hereby VACATED. The dates already set in the subject action remain set.

Moving Party to give Notice.

No Opposition filed as of July 17, 2023.

Trial courts may consolidate actions involving common questions of law or fact. (CCP §1048.) Consolidating actions does not affect the rights of the parties. Consolidation’s purpose is to avoid unnecessary costs or delay, avoid procedural duplication, particularly in proof or issues common to both actions, and avoid inconsistent results by hearing and deciding common issues together. (Estate of Baker (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 471, 485.) Deciding a motion to consolidate rests in the trial court’s sound discretion and will not be reversed except upon a clear abuse of discretion showing. (Feliner v. Steinbaum (1955) 132 Cal.App.2d 509, 511.)

Each case presents its own facts and circumstances, but trial courts generally consider the following factors: (1) the timeliness of the motion: whether granting consolidation would delay the trial of any of the cases involved; (2) complexity: whether joining the actions involved would make the trial too confusing or complex for a jury; and (3) prejudice: whether consolidation would adversely affect the rights of any party (State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1956) 47 Cal.2d.428, 430-431.) In deciding a motion consolidate, a court should weigh whether the common issues predominate over the individual issues and whether any risks of jury confusion or prejudice to the parties outweigh reducing time and expense that would result from the consolidation. (Todd-Stenberg v. Shield (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 946, 978.)

The unopposed motion to consolidate the instant action and the related action is granted. Both cases arise out of the same alleged events involving events that took place at Maggie’s Bar and Restaurant on September 18, 2019. The Court finds that both actions involve common questions of law and fact, and should be consolida