Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV11587, Date: 2024-01-02 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV11587 Hearing Date: April 5, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
A. Case number 22STCV11587 (Friedman v. Allen et al.)
On April 5, 2022, Plaintiffs Steven Friedman and Janis Friedman filed an action against Defendants Daniel Allen (“Allen”), Dana Campbell (“Campbell”), 21st Century Company, and Does 1-100 for negligence, infliction of emotional distress, strict liability for ultrahazardous activity, and declaratory relief.
On July 14, 2023, the clerk entered Allen’s default. On January 2, 2024, the Court granted Allen’s motion to vacate the default.
On February 20, 2024, the Court sustained Campbell’s demurrer to Plaintiffs’ claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and strict liability for engaging in ultrahazardous activity with 30 days leave to amend. The Court also granted Campbell’s motion to strike Plaintiffs’ punitive damage claim and allegations of malice, fraud, or oppression with 30 days leave to amend.
On March 21, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint against Allen, Campbell, 21st Century Insurance Company, and Does 1-100 for negligence (including negligence per se), infliction of emotional distress, strict liability for ultrahazardous activity, and declaratory relief.
Trial is currently scheduled for March 20, 2025.
B. Case number 23SMCV01086 (Hillman v. Campbell et al.)
On March 10, 2023, Plaintiff Jared Hillman (“Hillman”) filed an action against Defendants Campbell and Does 1-10 for negligence.
On March 13, 2023, Hillman filed a first amended complaint against Defendants Campbell, Allen, and Does 1-10 for negligence.
On September 11, 2023, Campbell filed an answer. On February 2, 2024, Allen filed an answer.
Trial is currently scheduled for March 20, 2025.
C. Case number 23SMCV01411 (Gillett v. Allen et al.)
On March 30, 2023, Plaintiff Rachelle Marie Gillett (“Gillett”) filed an action against Defendants Allen, Campbell, and Does 1-25 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence.
On August 11, 2023, Campbell filed an answer. On February 2, 2024, Allen filed an answer.
Trial is currently scheduled for March 12, 2025.
D. The Court relates the cases
On January 25, 2024, the Court found that case numbers 22STCV11587 and 23SMCV01086 are related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a). Case number 22STCV11587 became the lead case. The cases were assigned to Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse for all purposes.
On January 29, 2024, the Court found that case number 23SMCV01411 is related to case numbers 22STCV11587 and 23SMCV01086. Case number 22STCV11587 remained the lead case. The cases were assigned to Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse for all purposes.
E. Campbell files a motion to consolidate
On February 27, 2024, Campbell filed a motion to consolidate case numbers 22STCV11587, 23SMCV01086, and 23SMCV01411. Campbell filed the motion in case number 22STCV11587. The motion was set for hearing on April 5, 2024.
On
February 29, 2024, Allen filed a joinder in the motion.
PARTY’S REQUEST
Campbell asks the Court to consolidate case numbers 22STCV11587,
23SMCV01086, and 23SMCV01411 for all purposes including trial. Allen joins in the motion.
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
Campbell has filed a motion to consolidate case numbers 22STCV11587, 23SMCV01086, and 23SMCV01411. Campbell filed the motion in case number 22STCV11587.
Campbell did not, however, file notices of the motion in case numbers 23SMCV01086 and 23SMCV01411. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a)(1)(C).) The Court therefore denies the motion.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES without prejudice the motion to consolidate filed by Dana Campbell on February 27, 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.