TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Hassan Farazian’s Motion to Consolidate This Matter with LASC Case No. 24SMUD02455 is DENIED 

without prejudice.

Plaintiff Hassan Farazian 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 Hassan Farazian (“Plaintiff”) moves to consolidate this case with Case No. 24SMUD02455 (Farazian v. Farazian) on the grounds the two cases involve the same parties, common questions of law and fact, and competing claims to title to same property.

The present motion to consolidate the actions is premature, as no party has filed a Notice of Related Case in this action. Los Angeles Superior Court, Local Rules, rule 3.3(g) provides that “[c]ases may not be consolidated unless they are in the same department,” and “[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.” No notice of related case has been filed in either action, Case No. 24SMUD02455 is assigned to Department S rather than the current department, and this motion may become moot given Case No. 24SMUD02455 is set for trial on the same date of the hearing of this motion, April 10, 2025. Given these facts, the Court declines to rule on whether consolidation of these action is proper. Accordingly, Plaintiff Hassan Farazian’s Motion to Consolidate This Matter with LASC Case No. 24SMUD02455 is DENIED without prejudice.