Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23CHCV01767, Date: 2023-11-15 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23CHCV01767 Hearing Date: November 15, 2023 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 Defendants Speedy Floors Removal & Dumpsters (“Speedy”) and Does 1-50 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence (case number 22STCV11346).
On August 22, 2022, Araujo amended the complaint to add Defendant Robert Jamal Lewis (“Lewis”) as Doe 1.
On September 26, 2022, Speedy and Lewis filed an answer.
On March 15, 2023, Araujo amended the complaint to add Defendant Michael Patrick O’Connell (“O’Connell”) as Doe 2. 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, Speedy and Lewis filed an answer.
On September 26, 2023, the Court dismissed O’Connell without prejudice at Araujo’s 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 the case numbers 22STCV11346 and 23CHCV01767 were 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 files a motion to consolidate
On September 1, 2023, O’Connell filed a motion to consolidate case numbers 22STCV11346 and 23CHCV01767 to be heard on November 15, 2023. The motion was filed only in case number 23CHCV01767. No opposition has been filed.
PARTY’S REQUEST
O’Connell requests that the Court consolidate case numbers 22STCV11346 and 23CHCV01767.
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).)
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
The motion to consolidate does not comply with California
Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a). First, no
notice of motion to consolidate was filed in case number 22STCV11346. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a)(1)(C).) Second, the “memorandums, declarations, and
other supporting papers” were not filed in case number 22STCV11346, which
is “the lowest numbered case.” (Cal.
Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a)(2)(A).) Instead, the motion was filed in
The Court denies the motion to consolidate.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES Plaintiff Michael O’Connell’s 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.