Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 22STCV29932, Date: 2024-03-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV29932    Hearing Date: March 21, 2024    Dept: 30

SHERMANN KEITH GUIANG vs NEIL PIO FERNANDES, et al.

TENTATIVE

Defendant’s motion to consolidate with related case is DENIED without prejudice. Moving party 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.)

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 Fernandes moves for consolidation of this case with 22STCV30845 and 22STCV30912, arguing that all three cases involve the same collision and the same or similar parties. The potential witnesses including all of the plaintiffs themselves and defendants, any potential third party witnesses, investigating police officers, and any emergency personnel on scene are all the same in all three actions. Expert testimony concerning accident reconstruction, the nature and force of the impact, biomechanics, human factors, etc. will be the same or similar in all three actions. Consolidation will prevent the possibility of inconsistent verdicts and/or recovery.

This action and 22STCV30845 and 22STCV30912 have not been deemed related or assigned to this Department. As a result, the motion cannot be granted under Local Rules, rule 3.3(g)(1).

Further, Defendant has not filed the notice of motion to consolidate in 22STCV30845 and 22STCV30912. Defendant has thus not complied with CRC Rule 3.350(a)(1).