Judge Lynne M. Hobbs, Case Number: 22STCV25040, Date: 2023-05-22 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 22STCV25040, Date: 2023-05-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV25040 Hearing Date: April 17, 2024 Dept: 30

NJDEH KARABEDIAN vs LILYBETH GOMEZ-GARCIA

TENTATIVE

The Motion to Consolidate is DENIED. Plaintiff is ordered 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.)

Consolidation, however, is not a matter of right; it rests solely within the sound discretion of the trial judge. (Fisher v. Nash Bldg. Co.¿(1952) 113 Cal.App.2d 397, 402.)¿ Actions may be thoroughly “related” in the sense of having common questions of law or fact, and still not be “consolidated,” if the trial court, in the sound exercise of its discretion, chooses not to do so.¿ (Askew v. Askew¿(1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 942, 964.)¿ It is not abuse of discretion to deny motion for consolidation of actions where parties in each action are different or issues are different.¿ (See¿Muller v. Robinson¿(1959) 174 Cal App 2d 511, 515.)¿ On the other hand, actions may be consolidated in the discretion of the trial court whenever it can be done without prejudice to a substantial right.¿ (Carpenson¿v.¿Najarian¿(1967) 254 Cal.App.2d 856, 862.)¿

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).)

Discussion

Empire moves for a court order consolidating this action with 23CHCV03354 for all purposes. Defendant contends common issues of fact of law exist in both actions because these actions arise from the same collision. Empire however, believes that the accident was staged in order to commit insurance fraud. Empire filed case number 23CHCV03354 seeking a declaration that the accident was staged and that therefore, there is no coverage for the alleged accident. Defendant argues that keeping the two cases separate raises a substantial danger of inconsistent determinations as, for example, the two juries could reach opposite conclusions with regard to whether the accident was staged or not.

Plaintiff argues against consolidation, arguing that consolidation of the two actions would be improper, unworkable in practice, prejudicial to the parties, and against the interests of trial convenience and economy. If the cases were tried together, the attorneys and the Court would need to spend significant time fashioning special instructions, verdict forms, and trial management procedures to address the complexity, inconsistent positions, and risk of confusion and prejudice that consolidation would cause.

The Court finds against consolidation. While the insurance case stems from the vehicle collision, the insurance coverage issue will expand upon the facts of the personal injury case and involve facts not relevant to the personal injury case, such as whether the collision at issue was staged, the parties’ connection, or the alleged association of Gomez-Garcia with individuals suspected of insurance fraud. Further, there are no common issues of law. This case involves a negligence cause of action, while the insurance coverage claim involves fraud, which will require elements of proof not at issue in the personal injury litigation. In addition, the result in the personal injury case will not bind the insurance coverage claim. Further, Empire is not a party to this personal injury action. It is not abuse of discretion to deny motion for consolidation of actions where parties in each action are different or issues are different.¿ (See¿Muller v. Robinson¿(1959) 174 Cal App 2d 511, 515.) Lastly, consolidating these cases may also cause jury confusion. Consolidation would also prejudice Defendant in that her insurance would have to be disclosed to the jury. “It is therefore clear that the declaratory relief action and the personal injury actions could not be consolidated for trial "without prejudice to a substantial right" of petitioner, and that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering such consolidation.” (State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, In and For City and County of San Francisco (1956) 47 Cal.2d 428, 431.)

Conclusion

Accordingly, the motion to consolidate is DENIED.