Judge Lynne M. Hobbs, Case Number: 23STCV03841, Date: 2023-11-27 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 23STCV03841, Date: 2023-11-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV03841 Hearing Date: April 17, 2024 Dept: 30

DARIUS SQUIRE vs XINXIN TRINHMARTINES, et al.

TENTATIVE

The Motion to Consolidate is DENIED.

Judicial Assistant is directed to calendar within 60 days an OSC re sanctions in the amount of $250 for failure to file proof of service of the summons and complaint on the six unserved defendants, as required by CRC rule 3.110(b) and (f).

Clerk 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).)

“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 23VECV0102 for all purposes. Defendant contends common issues of law and fact exist in both actions because these actions involve the same parties and arise from the same accident that occurred on March 12, 2021.

As stated in the last ruling on this motion on November 27, 2023, this action and 23VECV0102 have not been deemed related and are assigned to different Departments. The lower case number of the two cases determines the court that considers a notice of related case. 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 23VECV0102.

In the Court's review of the case, the Court notes that six of the named defendants have not been served in this case. The complaint was filed on February 22, 2023. California Rules of Court rule 3.110(b) requires that the complaint "be served on all named defendants and proof of service on those defendants must be filed with the court within 60 days of the filing of the complaint." Here, over a year has passed and over half of the named defendants have not been served. California Rules of Court rule 3.110(f) allows the court to issue an order to show cause why sanctions shall not be imposed for failing to abide by this rule and failing to obtain an extension of time to serve its pleadings. LASC local rule 3.10
allows the Court to impose sanctions for the failure or refusal to comply with
time standards or deadlines. Further, all responsive paperwork -- such as declarations showing good cause, requests for continuance, or proofs of service, must be filed and served at least five calendar days prior to the OSC. CRC rule 3.110(i).

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Motion to Consolidate is DENIED. The Court calendars an OSC re failure to file proof of service of summons and complaint upon the remaining named defendants.