Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 22STCV16836, Date: 2023-12-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV16836    Hearing Date: March 1, 2024    Dept: 30

DWAYNE ELLIS BURT vs DOES I TO 50, INCLUSIVE

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff’s motion to consolidate with related case 22STCV16202 is GRANTED, for all purposes, including trial. 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

Plaintiff moves for consolidation of this case with 22STCV16202, 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 22STCV16202 were deemed related and assigned to this Department on October 24, 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 May 21, 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. Plaintiff 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. Lastly, Plaintiff has filed the notice of motion to consolidate in related case 22STCV16202. Defendant has thus complied with CRC Rule 3.350(a)(1).

Therefore, the motion is GRANTED.