Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 23SMCV03417, Date: 2025-04-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV03417    Hearing Date: April 9, 2025    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           California Fair Plan Assoc. v. Zapata, et al.

CASE NO.:                23SMCV03417/24SMCV04085

MOTION:                  Motion to Consolidate

HEARING DATE:   4/9/2025

Legal Standard

The trial court is authorized to consolidate pending “actions involving a common question of law or fact…,” so as to “avoid unnecessary costs or delay.” (CCP § 1048(a).) The decision to consolidate pending actions is a matter wholly committed to the trial court’s discretion. (Nat’l Elec. Supply Co. v. Mt. Diablo Unified Sch. Dist. (1960) 187 Cal.App.2d 418, 421.) LASC Local Rule 3.3(g)(1) further directs that consolidation cannot occur until “[a] motion to consolidate two or more cases [is] 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.”  

Under California Rules of Court Rule 3.350(a)(1), a notice of motion to consolidate must: (A) List all named parties in each case, the names of those who have appeared, and the names of their respective attorneys of record; (B) Contain the captions of all the cases sought to be consolidated, with the lowest numbered case shown first; and (C) Be filed in each case sought to be consolidated. (2) The motion to consolidate: (A) Is deemed a single motion for the purpose of determining the appropriate filing fee, but memorandums, declarations, and other supporting papers must be filed only in the lowest numbered case; (B) Must be served on all attorneys of record and all non-represented parties in all of the cases sought to be consolidated; and (C) Must have a proof of service filed as part of the motion. Under Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.350(b), “[u]nless otherwise provided in the order granting the motion to consolidate, the lowest numbered case in the consolidated case in the lead case.” 

Analysis

Defendants John Anothony Zapata and Maria Louise Shephard move to consolidate this action with the related action of The Standard Fire Insurance Company v. Evelyn Ramirez, LASC Case Number 24SMCV04085. Defendant failed to file the notice of motion in each case sought to be consolidated. Specifically, there is no notice of motion filed in 24SMCV04085. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED without prejudice.