Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV24859, Date: 2023-11-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV24859    Hearing Date: November 8, 2023    Dept: 28

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

BACKGROUND 

On August 2, 2022, Plaintiff Jaunee Tolson (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants City of Los Angeles (“City”), County of Los Angeles (“County”), and Does 1-50 alleging liability under Government Code section 835. 

On December 7, 2022, the County filed an answer.  On March 1, 2023, the Court dismissed the County without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request. 

On April 3, 2023, the City filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Roes 1-10 for indemnification, apportionment of fault, and declaratory relief. 

On July 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to consolidate to be heard on November 8, 2023. 

Trial is currently scheduled for January 30, 2024. 

PARTY’S REQUEST 

Plaintiff requests that the Court consolidate this case (22STCV24859) with case number 23STCV13096. 

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).) 

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 requests that the Court consolidate this case (22STCV24859) with case number 23STCV13096, which is pending in a different department.  The Court cannot consolidate cases that are pending in different departments unless they have previously been related.  

Plaintiff has not submitted a notice of related cases in this case (22STCV24859).  (Plaintiff filed a notice of related cases only in case number 23STCV13096.)  Plaintiff may submit a notice of related cases in this case (22STCV24859). 

The Court denies the motion to consolidate. 

CONCLUSION 

The court DENIES the motion to consolidate without prejudice. 

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.