Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 22STCV13612, Date: 2023-12-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV13612    Hearing Date: January 23, 2024    Dept: 30

ELLEN VEES vs ABZAKH AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC., et al.

TENTATIVE

Defendant’s motion to consolidate with related case 22STCV27099 is GRANTED, for all purposes including trial. 22STCV13612 is the lead case. 

Defendant's motion to continue the trial date and all trial related deadlines is GRANTED. The current trial and final status conference dates are advanced, vacated, and continued to January 21, 2025, and January 7, 2025, respectively. All trial related deadlines are continued in accordance with the new trial date. 

Moving party to give notice.
 

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

Defendants moves for consolidation of this case with related case 22STCV27099, arguing that these cases arise out of the same vehicle collision and involve identical issues of law and fact. A single trial on all issues will avoid unnecessary costs and delay, and will serve the interests of economy, and convenience.

This action and 22STCV27099 were deemed related and assigned to this Department on November 29, 2023. The motion thus complies with Local Rule 3.3(g).

The Court finds that both cases arise from the same vehicle collision that occurred on August 22, 2020, and involve the same cause of action for negligence. Further, the parties are the same in both cases. Thus, all these actions involve common issues of law and fact. 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. Further, Defendant has filed the notice of motion to consolidate in related case 22STCV27099. Defendant has thus complied with CRC Rule 3.350(a)(1).

Therefore, the motion to consolidate is GRANTED.

Given the consolidation and the hearing dates of the summary judgment motions, good cause exists to continue the trial date. Therefore, the motion to continue the trial date is GRANTED.