Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 22STCV30400, Date: 2024-05-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV30400    Hearing Date: May 9, 2024    Dept: 30

SERGIO MOSQUEDA, et al. vs MARTIN JUNIOR BECERRA, et al.

TENTATIVE

The Motion to Consolidate is DENIED without prejudice.  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.)

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).)

“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 a court order consolidating this action with 22STCV33040 for all purposes. Defendant contends common issues of law and fact exist in both actions because these actions involve the same or similar parties and arise from the same accident that occurred on October 13, 2020. In addition, consolidation of the Actions will promote judicial economy and will prevent duplicative evidence and witness testimony.

This action and 22STCV33040 have not been deemed related and are assigned to different Departments. The motion thus does not comply with Local Rule 3.3(g)(1). Moreover, Defendant has not complied with Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a)(3) in that Defendant has not filed a notice of this motion in 22STCV33040.  Until these deficiencies are addressed, the Court is unable to grant the motion. 

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Motion to Consolidate is DENIED without prejudice.