Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV32616, Date: 2024-12-05 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV32616 Hearing Date: December 5, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
A. Case number 22STCV32616
On October 5, 2022, Plaintiffs MJC, a minor, by and through his guardian ad litem Nancy Reyna, and Nancy Reyna, filed an action against Defendants Pristine Investment, LLC (“Pristine”), Cannabis on Demand, Exclusive Members Only, and Does 1-50 for negligence (wrongful death). (Case number 22STCV32616.)
On October 11, 2022, the Court appointed Nancy Reyna to serve as Plaintiff Mateo Joel Chavez’s guardian ad litem.
On January 26, 2023, Pristine filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Astra Security (“Astra”) and Does 1-50 for apportionment of fault, indemnity, and contribution. On May 3, 2023, Astra filed an answer to the cross-complaint. On June 21, 2023, the Court granted Pristine’s request to amend the cross-complaint to substitute the true name of Mauricio Villaneuva dba Astra Security for the incorrect name Astra Security.
On April 4, 2023, Plaintiffs amended the complaint to include Defendant Mauricio Villaneuva d/b/a Astra Security (“Villaneuva”) as Doe 41. On May 3, 2023, Villaneuva filed an answer.
On September 29, 2023, Plaintiffs amended the complaint to include Defendant Kai Zhang as Doe 1.
On April 16, 2024, Plaintiffs amended the complaint to include Defendant KZCA International, Inc. as Doe 2.
On August 8, 2024, Plaintiffs amended the complaint to include Defendant Adrian Hughes Sandoval as Doe 42.
On August 26, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a notice of related cases. On September 11, 2024, Pristine filed a notice of related cases.
B. Case number 24LBCV01693
On August 9, 2024, Plaintiffs Eloisa Chavez and Joel Chavez filed this action against Defendants Pristine, Cannabis on Demand, Exclusive Members Only, Kaie Zhang, KZCA International, Inc., Villaneuva, Adrian Hughes Sandoval, and Does 1-50 for negligence (wrongful death).
C. The Court relates case numbers 22STCV32616 and 24LBCV01693
On October 3, 2024, the Court found that case numbers 22STCV32616 and 24LBCV01693 are related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a). Case number 22STCV32616 became the lead case. The cases were assigned to Department 28 at the Spring Street Courthouse for all purposes.
D. Pristine moves to consolidate
Trial is currently scheduled for February 27, 2025.
PARTY’S REQUEST
Pristine asks the Court to consolidate case numbers 22STCV32616 and 24LBCV01693.
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 22STCV32616 and 24LBCV01693 raise common questions of fact and law. Both cases are pending in Department 28. The Court deemed the cases related on October 3, 2024. Pristine has complied with the requirements for moving to consolidate. The Court grants the motion.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS the Defendant Pristine Investment, LLC’s motion to consolidate case numbers 22STCV32616 and 24LBCV01693. The Court consolidates the cases for all purposes, including trial. Case number 22STCV32616 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.