Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 22STCV31782, Date: 2023-12-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV31782    Hearing Date: February 6, 2024    Dept: 30

ROBERT OCHOA vs EVAN TAKESHI TSUJI, et al.

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff’s motion to consolidate with related case is GRANTED.  The Ochoa v. Tsuji, et al. action in the Los Angeles County Superior Court under case number 22STCV31782, is ordered consolidated with the Ochoa, et al. v. Gonzalez, et. al. action in the Los Angeles County Superior Court under case number 22STCV33087 for all purposes, including trial, under the lead case number 22STCV31782 and assigned to Department 30 in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. 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 22STCV33087, arguing that both incidents involve bodily injury incidents, i.e., two motor vehicle accidents causing personal injury to Plaintiff’s neck and back. Moreover, both incidents will have overlapping damages, lay witnesses and healthcare providers. Further, both incidents will involve testimony from all parties to each accident as each side will want to know the biomechanical injury causation details of each accident.

This action and 22STCV33087 were deemed related and assigned to this Department on November 2, 2023. The motion thus complies with Local Rule 3.3(g).

The Court finds that both cases arise from similar incidents, vehicle collisions, and involve the same causes of action for negligence and negligence per se. Further, Plaintiff is the plaintiff in both cases and alleges injuries to his neck and back in both cases. Thus, all these actions involve common issues of law and fact.

Further, 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. Plaintiff also included the captions of all the cases sought to be consolidated. Lastly, Plaintiff has filed the notice of motion to consolidate in related case 22STCV33087. Plaintiff has thus complied with CRC Rule 3.350(a)(1).

Therefore, the motion to consolidate with related case 22STCV33087 is granted.