Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV28863, Date: 2023-12-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV28863    Hearing Date: December 19, 2023    Dept: 28

Having considered the moving and opposing papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND 

On August 5, 2021, Plaintiff Luis Queche (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Joshuelo Mondragon Aguilar (“Defendant”) and Does 1-100 for negligence and property damage. 

On August 25, 2021, Defendant filed an answer. 

On December 27, 2022, the Court found that this case (case number 21STCV28863) was not related to case number 21STCV43219 within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a). 

On October 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to consolidate this case (case number 21STCV28863) and case number 21STCV43219.  On December 7, 2023, Defendant filed an opposition. 

PARTIES’ REQUESTS 

Plaintiff requests that the Court consolidate this case (21STCV28863) with case number 21STCV43219. 

Defendant requests that the Court deny the motion. 

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 

Plaintiff seeks consolidation of two cases that are not in the same department.  This case (case number 21STCV28863) is pending in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  Case number 21STCV43219 is pending in Department 27 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  Therefore, the Court denies the motion to consolidate under Los Angeles County Local Rule 3.3(g).  (The Court has not considered whether the motion satisfies the other statutory and rule requirements.) 

CONCLUSION 

The Court DENIES the motion to consolidate filed by Plaintiff Luis Queche. 

          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.