TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Xiaoli Lily Qiu, Parent and Guardian ad Litem, L.W., a Minor’s Motion to Consolidate and for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint in Consolidated Action is DENIED.

Plaintiff Xiaoli Lily Qiu, Parent and Guardian ad Litem, L.W., a Minor to give notice. 

REASONING

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.)

Plaintiff Xiaoli Lily Qiu, Parent and Guardian ad Litem, L.W., a Minor (“Plaintiff”) moves the Court for an order consolidating the present action with Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 24SMCV00529 (Qiu v. Geffen Academy at UCLA). The cases have been deemed related, and both cases are currently pending in this department. Plaintiff argues that the cases share common issues of law and fact, consolidation will promote efficiency, and consolidation will save time and costs and avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts. Defendant The Regents of the University of California (“Defendant”) opposes consolidation on the ground that the claims in the two action are unrelated and arise from completely different alleged incidents, and while they occurred at the same school, the incidents do not involve the same set of events, they have different alleged acts, and there are different damages sought.

In this action, Plaintiff alleges harm to L.W. arising out of Defendant’s alleged failure to sufficiently train employees to support L.W.’s education and discipline at Geffen Academy, which required the minor to transfer schools, Defendant’s failure to adhere to a 504 Plan and related evaluation, and Defendant’s failure to accommodate L.W.’s disability. In Case No. 24SMCV00529, Plaintiff alleges the same harm to L.W., expanding on the claims alleged in the present action, and Plaintiff adds claims that G.W. was the victim of bullying at Geffen Academy, and the named defendants failed to enforce rules and policies related to bullying, causing G.W.’s mental health and social emotional condition to deteriorate.

The Court finds that consolidation is improper at this juncture. While the actions overlap as to the claims alleged as to L.W., the claims as to G.W. are different, and there is no overlap of law and fact as to those claims. Given the two claims pose entirely different facts, different witnesses and discovery will be required in the two actions. The actions will involve different legal issues, and the alleged harm was caused by different individuals in each action. Put simply, the two actions arise out of different incidents and facts, making consolidation improper. Accordingly, Plaintiff Xiaoli Lily Qiu, Parent and Guardian ad Litem, L.W., a Minor’s Motion to Consolidate and for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint in Consolidated Action is DENIED. Insofar as Plaintiff sought to file an amended complaint in a consolidated action, the cases have not been consolidated, rendering that portion of the motion moot.