Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV11346, Date: 2023-09-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV11346    Hearing Date: February 22, 2024    Dept: 28

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

BACKGROUND 

A.   Case number 22STCV11346 

On April 4, 2022, Plaintiff Sandra Araujo (“Araujo”) filed an action against Defendant Speedy Floors Removal & Dumpsters (“Speedy”) and Does 1-50 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence (case number 22STCV11346). 

On August 22, 2022, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendant Robert Jamal Lewis as Doe 1 (“Lewis”). 

On September 26, 2022, Speedy and Lewis filed an answer. 

On March 15, 2023, Plaintiff amended the complaint to add Michael Patrick O’Connell as Doe 2 (“O’Connell”). On June 14, 2023, O’Connell filed an answer. 

On June 15, 2023, O’Connell filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Speedy and Lewis for indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief. On July 18, 2023, Cross-Defendants Speedy and Lewis filed an answer. 

On September 26, 2023, the Court dismissed O’Connell with prejudice at Plaintiff’s request. On December 29, 2023, the Court dismissed O’Connell’s cross-complaint with prejudice at his request. 

Trial is currently scheduled for July 16, 2024. 

B.   Case number 23CHCV01767 

On June 16, 2023, O’Connell filed an action against Speedy, Lewis, Araujo, and Does 1-100 for negligence, negligent entrustment, and negligent hiring, supervision and retention (case number 23CHCV01767). 

On August 18, 2023, Speedy and Lewis filed an answer to the complaint. 

On August 1, 2023, Araujo filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Speedy, Lewis, and Roes 1-50 for indemnity and declaratory relief. 

On August 18, 2023, Speedy and Lewis filed an answer to the cross-complaint. 

No trial date is currently scheduled. 

C.   The Court relates the cases 

On August 25, 2023, the Court found that case numbers 22STCV11346 and 23CHCV01767 are related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a). 22STCV11346 became the lead case. The cases were assigned to Department 28 at the Spring Street Courthouse for all purposes. 

D.      O’Connell moves to consolidate the cases 

On January 10, 2024, O’Connell filed a motion to consolidate case numbers 22STCV11346 and 23CHCV01767 to be heard on February 22, 2024.  No opposition has been filed. 

PARTY’S REQUEST 

          O’Connell asks the Court to consolidate case numbers 22STCV11346 and 23CHCV01767 for all purposes. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

          Code of Civil Procedure section 1048, subdivision (a), provides: 

“(a) 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 

          Case numbers 22STCV11346 and 23CHCV01767 arise out of the same motor vehicle accident.  The Court finds that the cases involve a common question of law or fact and consolidation for all purposes is appropriate.  The Court grants the motion. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court GRANTS the motion to consolidate filed by Michael Patrick O’Connell.  Case number 22STCV11346 and case number 23CHCV01767 are consolidated for all purposes in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  Case number 22STCV11346 remains the lead case. 

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.