Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV17814, Date: 2024-08-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV17814    Hearing Date: August 29, 2024    Dept: 28

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

BACKGROUND 

A.   Case number 22STCV17814 

On May 31, 2022, Plaintiffs Amalia Alvarez (“Amalia Alvarez”) and Nemecio Alvarez (“Nemecio Alvarez”) filed an action against Defendants City of Los Angeles (“City”), Thomas O’Sullivan (“O’Sullivan”), Jonathan Isco (“Isco”), and Does 1-50 for motor vehicle tort, general negligence, and liability for wrongful act or omissions by public entity employees, Government Code section 815.2, et seq.  (Case number 22STCV17814.) 

On August 4, 2022, the City and O’Sullivan filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Isco and Roes 1-10 for indemnification, apportionment of fault, and declaratory relief. 

On November 17, 2022, Isco filed an answer to Plaintiffs’ complaint. 

On August 16, 2023, Plaintiffs amended the complaint to include Defendant Integrated Resources Institute as Doe 1 (“Integrated”). 

On March 20, 2024, Integrated filed an answer. 

Trial is currently scheduled for January 30, 2025. 

B.   Case number 22STCV18442 

On June 6, 2022, the City filed an action against Defendants Isco and Does 1-10 for motor vehicle tort.  (Case number 22STCV18442.) 

On November 17, 2022, Isco filed an answer. 

On February 22, 2024, the City amended the complaint to include Integrated as Doe 1.

On May 3, 2024, Integrated filed an answer. 

Trial is currently scheduled for February 20, 2025. 

C.   Case number 23VECV01681 

On April 18, 2023, Plaintiffs O'Sullivan, Walter A. Grant (“Grant”), Patrick T. Wood (“Patrick Wood”), and Andrea Francine Wood (“Andrea Wood”) filed an action against Isco and Does 1-50 for negligence and loss of consortium.  (Case number 23VECV01681.)

On August 9, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint. 

On September 15, 2023, Isco filed an answer. 

On March 1, 2024, Plaintiffs amended the complaint to include Integrated as Doe 2. 

On May 3, 2024, Integrated filed an answer to the first amended complaint.

Trial is currently scheduled for March 5, 2025.

D.   The Court relates (1) case numbers 22STCV17814 and 22STCV18442 and (2) case numbers 23VECV01681 and 22STCV17814 

On December 22, 2022, the Court found that case numbers 22STCV17814 and 22STCV18442 are related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a).  22STCV17814 became the lead case.  The cases were assigned to Department 28 at the Spring Street Courthouse for all purposes. 

On October 16, 2023, the Court found that the case numbers 23VECV01681 and 22STCV17814 are related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a).  22STCV17814 became the lead case. The cases were assigned to Department 28 at the Spring Street Courthouse for all purposes. 

E.   Motions to consolidate 

On July 26, 2024, in case number 22STCV17814, Isco filed a motion to consolidate case numbers 22STCV17814, 22STCV18442, and 23VECV01681.  The motion was set for hearing on August 29, 2024. On August 16, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an opposition. On August 21, 2024, Integrated filed a notice of non-opposition and Isco filed a reply. 

On August 16, 2024, in case numbers 22STCV18842 and 23STCV01681, Isco filed a motion to consolidate case numbers 22STCV17814, 22STCV18842, and 23VECV01681.  The motion was set for hearing on August 29, 2024. 

On August 23, 2024, O’Sullivan, Grant, Patrick Wood, and Andrea Wood filed a notice of non-opposition to Isco’s motion to consolidate filed and served on July 25, 2024. 

On August 26, 2024, the City filed a notice of non-opposition to Isco’s motion to consolidate filed and served on July 25, 2024. 

PARTIES’ REQUESTS 

Isco asks the Court to consolidate case numbers 22STCV17814, 22STCV18442, and 23VECV01681.  

Amalia Alvarez and Nemecio Alvarez ask the Court to deny 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 

          Isco asks the Court to consolidate case numbers 22STCV17814, 22STCV18442, and 23VECV01681 because the cases are personal injury actions that arise out of the same vehicle accident.  The cases have been related into the same Department.         

          Amalia Alvarez and Nemecio Alvarez (“Alvarez Plaintiffs”) oppose the motion, arguing (1) the motion does not list all named parties in each case, all names of those who have appeared, and all counsel of record (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a)(1)(A)) and (2) Isco did not file notice of motion in each case sought to be consolidated (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a)(1)(C)). 

          The motion lists the parties and counsel in the body of the motion and in the proof of service. 

          Although Isco filed the motion to consolidate in case number 22STCV17814 on July 26, 2024, Isco did not file notice of the motion in case numbers 22STCV18442 and 23VECV01681 until August 16, 2024.  However, Isco served the July 26, 2024 motion to consolidate on counsel for the parties in all three cases. The City, O’Sullivan, Grant, Patrick Wood, and Andrea Wood have filed notices of non-opposition. 

          The Court finds that Isco substantially complied with the procedural requirements for a motion to consolidate.  The Court grants the motion and consolidates case numbers 222STCV17814, 22STCV18442, and 23VECV01681 for all purposes. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court GRANTS the motion of Defendant and Cross-Defendant Jonathan Isco to consolidate case numbers 222STCV17814, 22STCV18442, and 23VECV01681 for all purposes.  The cases are consolidated. 

Case number 22STCV17814 is 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.