Judge Lynne M. Hobbs, Case Number: 21STCV11714, Date: 2023-12-11 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 21STCV11714, Date: 2023-12-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV11714 Hearing Date: December 11, 2023 Dept: 30

SHELLEY MILLER, AN INDIVIDUAL vs ROBERT L GINDY, AN INDIVIDUAL, et al.

Motion to Consolidate

TENTATIVE

Defendants’ motion for an order relating and consolidating this case with 22STCV06772, for all purposes, is GRANTED. 21STCV11714 is the lead case. Moving party is to give notice to all parties.

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).) The purpose of consolidation is to enhance trial court efficiency by avoiding unnecessary duplication of evidence and the danger of inconsistent adjudications. (See Todd-Stenberg v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 976, 978-979.)

A Notice of Motion to consolidate cases must (1) include a list of all named parties in each case, the names of those who have appeared, and the names of their respective attorneys of record; (2) include the captions of all the cases sought to be consolidated; and (3) be filed in each case sought to be consolidated. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a)(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.” (Super. Ct. L.A. County, Local Rules, rule 3.3(g)(1).)

Discussion

Defendant moves for an order relating and consolidating this case with 22STCV06772, arguing that these cases involve: the exact same parties, plaintiff Shelley Miller, and Defendants Fred M. Gindy as Trustee under the Trusts created under The Will of Robert Gindy aka Robert L. Gindy & Fred Gindy and Sea Haven Apartments; similarly claimed incidents (the complaint’s allegations of each incident, although virtually one year apart, are verbatim) and causes of action for premises liability; and the same property (indeed, the same stairway). Accordingly, common questions of law and fact are pending before the Court. Relation and consolidation of these matters is necessary and appropriate to avoid potentially inconsistent findings of fact and law, and rulings, orders and judgments as such would be unfair, unjust and inequitable to the parties in the respective actions. Relation and consolidation will serve to avoid unnecessary waste of time, expense, and judicial resources, and further protect against needless expenditures of duplicative costs as well as potential further delays.

The subject actions are presently scheduled for trial within a month of each other, January 23, 2024 and February 23, 2024, respectively. Thus, these matters are progressing with

discovery and pretrial preparations at relatively the same pace, and no parties would be unduly prejudice by a 30-day postponement of trial of the lead case.

The inquiry on a notice of related cases is whether the cases at issue (1) involve the same parties and are based on the same or similar claims; (2) arise from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact; (3) involve claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the same property; or (4) are likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges.¿ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a).)¿

Here, these actions involve the same parties and same claims, and otherwise arise from substantially identical events, which would require determination of the same questions of law and fact. As such, the Court deems these cases related and assigns 22STCV06772 to this department.

As to consolidation, the Court finds that although the date of injury for the cases are one year apart, the cases arise from the same fall on the same stairwell on the same property, and involve the same causes of action for premises liability and negligence, and thus the issues would be overlapping. Both actions arise out of Plaintiff’s claim that the stairwell did not have handrails. While Plaintiff alleges that the second fall involves a deteriorated step, this distinction is minor and would not overburden the jury as Plaintiff argues. Further, the parties are the exact same in both cases and represented by the same attorneys. Thus, all these actions involve common issues of law and fact. Additionally, the matter is straight-forward and thus, there is little risk of confusing the jury.

Also, Plaintiff presents no evidence that the witnesses would be different or her injuries are different with different medical providers.

Moreover, the trial dates are one month apart, and therefore, the parties will not be prejudiced by consolidation. Thus, the Court finds in favor of consolidation.

Lastly, Defendant has listed all named parties in each case, the parties who have appeared in the actions, and the names of their respective attorneys of record in the notice of motion to consolidate. Defendant has also included the captions of all the cases sought to be consolidated, and has filed the notice of motion to consolidate in 22STCV06772. Defendant has thus complied with CRC Rule 3.350(a)(1).

Therefore, the Court grants the motion for an order relating and consolidating this case with 22STCV06772.