Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 22NWCV01005, Date: 2024-01-11 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV01005, Date: 2024-01-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV01005 Hearing Date: January 11, 2024 Dept: C

ZHENG v. SOUTHLAND TRANSIT, INC.

CASE NO.: 22NWCV01005

HEARING: 01/11/24

Defendants SOUTHLAND TRANSIT, INC.; LOS ANGELES METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY; and SANDRA SCHREINER’s Motion to Consolidate is GRANTED. This action (22NWCV01005) (“the Subject Action”) is hereby consolidated with Locklin v. Southland Transit Inc. (23NWCV02054), with the Subject Action acting as the lead case.

All dates in case number 23NWCV02054 are hereby VACATED. The dates already set in the Subject Action remain set.

Moving Party to give Notice.

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 sounds discretion and will not be reversed except upon a clear abuse of discretion showing. (Feliner v. Steinbaum (1955) 132 Cal.App.2d 509, 511.) Two types of consolidation are available: “(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 trial will be conducive to expedition and economy, may order a sperate 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….” (CCP §1048.)

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.)

In its Moving Papers, Defendants argue that consolidation for all purposes is proper where Case Numbers 22NWCV01005 and 23NWCV02054 arise from the same motor vehicle accident; involve all of the same witnesses, including the occupants of the same vehicle, the same emergency response personnel; and some of the same experts. Defendants maintain that consolidation will avoid duplicative litigation of common issues of law and fact.

The Court notes that Defendants’ request to continue the February 2, 2024 trial date is MOOT. Trial is currently scheduled for October 1, 2024.

In Opposition, the Zheng Plaintiffs argue that Plaintiff Grace Tsai is a minor, and thus entitled to a mandatory trial preference. The Zheng Plaintiffs indicate that they intend to move for preference. However, at time, no such Motion is on file with the Court. The Zheng Plaintiffs additionally argue that, although the related actions stem from the same accident, the defense has already stipulated to liability and consolidation is not necessary because the only issues for trial will be the separate and distinct issues of each plaintiffs’ damages.

It is undisputed that both cases involve the same operative facts—same multi-vehicle car accident that occurred on February 8, 2022. It is also undisputed that the related cases involve the same parties and will likely involve some or all of the same witnesses. In the interests of judicial efficiency, the Court finds that the actions involve common questions of law and fact, and should be consolidated. Therefore, the Motion to Consolidate is GRANTED. The issues of severance, bifurcation or any other related issues may be raised by the parties at a later time, if necessary.