TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff The Cincinnati Insurance Company’s Motion to Consolidate Related Cases is DENIED.

Plaintiff The Cincinnati Insurance Company to give notice. 

REASONING

Plaintiff in Case No. 23SMCV03219 The Cincinnati Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) moves the Court for an order consolidating Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 22SMCV00573 (Firestone v. Brende) with Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 23SMCV03219 (The Cincinnati Insurance Company v. Brende) for all purposes including trial on the ground that the actions arise from the same incident, such that they involve common questions of law and fact, and consolidation is necessary to avoid inconsistent rulings. Defendant/Cross-Complainant in Case No. 23SMCV03219 Universal Appliances, Kitchens and Baths, Inc. dba Universal Appliance and Kitchen Center (“Defendant”) opposes the motion on the ground that consolidating will prejudice Defendant’s right to due process because the other action has an imminent trial date, Defendant is new to one action and is not a party to the other, the factual issues in the two cases differ, and one case should be heard in a bench trial while the other will be heard before a jury. At the outset, the Court notes that the motion and reply were filed in one case, Case No. 22SMCV00573, while the opposition was filed in the other case, Case No. 23SMCV03219. The Court orders the parties to file their briefs in the other case within ten (10) days of entry of this order so the court record properly tracks this Court’s decision, i.e., Plaintiff shall file its motion and reply in Case No. 23SMCV03219, and Defendant shall file its opposition in Case No. 22SMCV00573.

The trial court has discretion to consolidate actions involving common questions of law or fact. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a).) The purpose of consolidation is “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.)

In deciding whether to consolidate actions, the Court generally considers the following factors: (1) timeliness of the motion, i.e., whether granting consolidation would delay the trial of any of the cases involved; (2) complexity, i.e., whether joining the actions involved would make the trial too confusing or complex for a jury; and (3) prejudice, i.e., whether consolidation would adversely affect the rights of any party. (See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1956) 47 Cal.2d 428, 430-431; Todd-Stenberg v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 976, 978-979.)

Case Nos. 22SMCV00573 and 23SMCV03219 have been deemed related, and both cases are pending in the same department. The Court has reviewed the pleadings in both actions and find consolidation is not warranted here. The cases involve different parties; while three defendants in are the same in both actions, the parties are otherwise different, i.e., the two cases have different plaintiffs, there is an additional party in Case No. 23SMCV03219, and that additional party, Defendant, has filed a cross-complaint. Case No. 22SMCV00573 is an action for breach of contract, intentional misrepresentation, intentional concealment, negligence, and disgorgement of monies paid to unlicensed contractor, while Case No. 23SMCV03219 is an action for only breach of contract and negligence, and the cross-complaint in Case No. 23SMCV03219 is an action for indemnity, contribution, apportionment, declaratory relief, and breach of contract, such that the questions of fact and law are not the same. Insofar as Plaintiff is concerned about inconsistent rulings, the Court is not so convinced, as the result of one case can inform the result in the other case through application of collateral estoppel. Further, one action already has a trial date, while the other action is newer and without a trial date, such that Defendant would be prejudiced by consolidation of the cases for an earlier trial date than would be set in the Case No. 23SMCV03219 alone. Accordingly, Plaintiff The Cincinnati Insurance Company’s Motion to Consolidate Related Cases is DENIED.