Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV27105, Date: 2023-11-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV27105 Hearing Date: November 20, 2023 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
A. Case number 20STCV39524
On August 23, 2022, the Court determined that the action was complicated based on the number of pretrial hearings and/or the complexity of the issues presented. At the direction of Department 1, the case was transferred and reassigned to Judge Joel L. Lofton in Department X of the Alhambra Courthouse, an Independent Calendar Court, for all purposes except trial. Department 1 delegated to Department X the authority to assign the case for trial.
On May 31, 2023, Alan Avanessian, individually and doing business as Entirely Exotic Motorsports (“Avanessian”), a defendant in case number 21STCV27105, filed a “Notice of Related Cases and Request for Consolidation” of case numbers 20STCV39524 and 21STCV27105.
On June 5, 2023, Judge Lofton denied Avanessian’s motion to consolidate case numbers 20STCV39524 and 21STCV27105, finding “the cases are not similar in facts, parties or legal issues.”
On
August 14, 2023, Plaintiffs Estate of Ratavous Shahverdi, by and through his
successor-in-interest Andre Shahverdi, and Nora Shahverdi filed a first amended
complaint against Defendants Narbeh
Tovmassian, M.D., Elevate Health Group, Montrose Healthcare Center, and Does 1-50
for medical malpractice, lack of informed
consent, failure to screen, loss of consortium, general negligence, negligent
infliction of emotional distress, wrongful death, and fraud.
Trial is currently scheduled for May 7, 2024.
B. Case number 21STCV27105
On July 23, 2021, Plaintiff Andre Shahverdi, individually and as successor-in-interest to Ratavous Shaverdi (“Plaintiff”), filed an action against Defendants Alan Avanessian, Entirely Exotic Motorsports, and Does 1-50 for negligence, motor vehicle negligence, negligence per se, negligent entrustment, wrongful death, and survival.
On March 10, 2023, Defendant Alan Avanessian, individually and doing business as Entirely Exotic Motorsports (“Avanessian”), filed an answer.
On October 3, 2023, Avanessian filed a motion to consolidate to be heard on November 20, 2023.
No trial date is currently scheduled.
PARTY’S REQUEST
Avanessian requests that the Court consolidate case numbers 20STCV39524 and 21STCV27105.
LEGAL STANDARD
“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a).)
California Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a), provides:
“(a) Requirements of motion
“(1) A notice of motion to consolidate must:
“(A) List all named parties in each case, the names of those who have appeared, and the names of their respective attorneys of record;
“(B) Contain the captions of all the cases sought to be consolidated, with the lowest numbered case shown first; and
“(C) Be filed in each case sought to be consolidated.
“(2) The motion to consolidate:
“(A) Is deemed a single motion for the purpose of determining the appropriate filing fee, but memorandums, declarations, and other supporting papers must be filed only in the lowest numbered case;
“(B) Must be served on all attorneys of record and all nonrepresented parties in all of the cases sought to be consolidated; and
“(C) Must have a proof of service filed as part of the motion.”
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a).)
Los Angeles County Superior Court Local Rule 3.3(g) provides: “(1) Cases may not be consolidated unless they are in the same department. 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. (2) Upon consolidation of cases, the first filed case will be the lead case, unless otherwise ordered by the court. After consolidation, all future papers to be filed in the consolidated case must be filed only in the case designated as the lead case. (3) Before consolidation of a limited case with an unlimited case, the limited case must be reclassified as an unlimited case and the reclassification fee paid.”
DISCUSSION
On June 5, 2023, in case number 20STCV39524, Judge Lofton denied Avanessian’s motion to consolidate that case and case number 21STCV27105, finding “the cases are not similar in facts, parties or legal issues.”
Four months later, Avanessian has filed another motion to consolidate the same cases, this time in case number 21STCV27105. The motion does not mention that Judge Lofton, in case number 20STCV395524, previously denied a motion to consolidate the two cases and found the two cases were “not similar in facts, parties or legal issues.”
In a declaration, Avanessian’s counsel states: “Attached hereto as Exhibit ‘C’ is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the earlier complaint to restate the parties to be more like the later action.” [1] (Braze Dec. ¶ 3.) If Avanessian is suggesting that the amended complaint in 20STCV39524 allows this Court to revisit Judge Lofton’s conclusion that “the cases are not similar in facts, parties or legal issues,” Avanessian provides no other explanation or argument on this point.
Avanessian asserts that he filed notice of this motion to consolidate in case number 20STCV39524 as well as in 21STCV27105. In fact, the only notice of motion to consolidate which Avanessian filed in 20STCV39525 was the “Notice of Related Cases and Request for Consolidation” of case numbers 20STCV39524 and 21STCV27105, which Avanessian filed on May 31, 2023 and Judge Lofton denied on June 5, 2023.
In addition, the cases have not been related and are not pending in the same department. They therefore cannot be consolidated.
The Court denies the motion and sets an order to show cause re: imposition of $500 in sanctions on Avanessian and his counsel for filing a frivolous motion. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 128.5, subds. (b), (c), (f)(2); L. Edmon & C. Karnow, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter 2023) ¶¶ 9:1017 - 9:1028, pp. 9(III)-10 to 9(III)-11.)
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES the motion to consolidate filed by Defendant Alan Avanessian, individually and doing business as Entirely Exotic Motorsports.
The Court sets an OSC re: sanctions for filing a frivolous motion to be heard on January 3, 2024.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.
[1] The motion to amend is not attached to counsel’s declaration.