Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV13517, Date: 2025-05-07 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV13517 Hearing Date: May 7, 2025 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
A. Case number 23STCV13517
On June 12, 2023, Plaintiff Veronica Patino Contreras (“Contreras”) filed an action against Defendants Ryder Truck Rental LT, Alejandro Alfonso Estrada (“Estrada”), Edward Joel Lopez (“Lopez”) and Does 1-20 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence. (Case number 23STCV13517.)
On July 21, 2023, Contreras amended the complaint to include Defendant Imperial Bag & Paper Co. LLC (“Imperial”) as Doe 1.
On July 26, 2023, Defendants Ryder Truck Rental, LT (“Ryder”) and Lopez filed an answer. On October 11, 2023, Imperial filed an answer.
On November 9, 2023, Estrada filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Lopez and Roes 1-10 for indemnity, comparative contribution, and declaratory relief. On January 8, 2024, Lopez filed an answer to the cross-complaint.
On
March 29, 2024, the Court dismissed Ryder from the complaint without prejudice
at Contreras’s request.
Trial is currently scheduled for December 8, 2025.
B. Case number 24STCV21181
On August 20, 2024, Estrada filed an action against Lopez, Ryder, and Does 1-20 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence. (Case number 24STCV21181.)
On October 29, 2024, Estrada filed a first amended complaint.
On
March 28, 2025, Lopez and Ryder filed an answer.
No trial date is currently scheduled.
C. The Court relates case numbers 23STCV13517 and 24STCV21181
On March 3, 2025, the Court found that case numbers 23STCV13517 and 24STCV21181 are related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a). Case number 23STCV13517 became the lead case. The cases were assigned to Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse for all purposes.
D. Motion to consolidate
On March 28, 2025, Imperial filed a motion in case number 23STCV13517 to consolidate case numbers 23STCV13517 and 24STCV21181. The motion was set for hearing on May 7, 2025.
On April 2, 2025, Imperial filed a declaration in case number 24STCV21181 stating: “Defendants have attempted in good faith to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a)(1)(C), however, Defendants’ attempt to file the notice in 24STCV21181 have been rejected, and Defendants have been unable to file the notice independently without rejection. As a result, Defendants have attached the notice to this declaration, and provided notice to all parties and counsels in both 23STCV13517 and 24STCV21181. [¶] Attached herein as Exhibit 1, is a true and correct copy of Defendants’ Notice of Motion to Consolidate Cases, and incorporated by reference.”
PARTY’S REQUEST
Imperial asks the Court to consolidate case numbers 23STCV13517 and 24STCV21181.
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;
“(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
Imperial’s motion to consolidate complies with the applicable rules and requirements. Consolidation is appropriate because both cases arise from the same set of events. The Court grants the motion.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Defendant Imperial Bag & Paper Co. LLC’s motion to consolidate case numbers 23STCV13517 and 24STCV21181. The Court consolidates case numbers 23STCV13517 and 24STCV21181 for all purposes. Case number 23STCV13517 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.