Judge Mark E. Windham, Case 20STLC05230 2022-12-19 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 20STLC05230, Date: 2022-12-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STLC05230 Hearing Date: December 19, 2022 Dept: 26

Crenshaw Enterprises, Inc. v. Cal. Dept. of Public Health, et al.

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

(CRC 3.350; Code Civ. Proc., § 1048(a))

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant California Department of Public Health’s Motion to Consolidate is GRANTED. TRIAL IN BOTH MATTERS IS CONTINUED TO JUNE 2, 2023 AT 8:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. DISCOVERY AND MOTIONS CUTOFFS TO RUN FROM THE NEW TRIAL DATE.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Crenshaw Enterprises, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action challenging a citation issued against it by the California Department of Public Health (“Defendant”) on June 22, 2020. Defendant CDPH filed an Answer on September 15, 2020.

On December 3, 2021, Plaintiff filed another action against Defendant, in LASC Case No. 21STLC08555. Defendant filed the instant Motion to Consolidate the actions on November 7, 2022. Plaintiff filed an opposition on December 7, 2022 and Defendant replied on December 12, 2022.

Legal Standard

Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.350(a) states in relevant part:

(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

(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

(Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.350(a).) Motions to consolidate are also governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 1048. The purpose of consolidation is to avoid unnecessary costs or delay, avoid duplication of procedure, particularly in the proof of issues common to both action, and avoid inconsistent results by hearing and deciding common issues together. (See Estate of Baker (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 471, 485.) The granting or denial of a motion to consolidate rests in the trial court's sound discretion, and will not be reversed except upon a clear showing of abuse of discretion. (Feliner v. Steinbaum (1955) 132 Cal.App.2d 509, 511.) Each case presents its own facts and circumstances, but the court generally considers the following: (1) timeliness of the motion: i.e., whether granting consolidation would delay the trial of any of the cases involved; (2) complexity: i.e., whether joining the actions involved would make the trial too confusing or complex for a jury; and (3) prejudice: i.e., whether consolidation would adversely affect the rights of any party. (See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1956) 47 Cal.2d 428, 430–431.)

In deciding whether to grant a motion to consolidate, the court should weigh whether the common issues predominate over the individual issues and whether any risks of jury confusion or prejudice to the parties outweighs the reduction in time and expense that would result from consolidation. (Todd-Stenberg v. Shield (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 976, 978.)

Discussion

Defendant moves to consolidate this action with LASC Case. No. 21STLC08555 on the grounds that both cases arise out of the same set of operative facts, and therefore require resolution of common questions of law and fact. Procedurally, the Notice of Motion to Consolidate partially complies with Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.350(a)(1) by containing the captions of the cases sought to be consolidated, but does not indicate which parties have appeared and their attorneys of record. Nor was the Notice of Motion filed in both cases. However, the proof of service does demonstrate compliance with Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.350(a)(2).

As to the merits, Defendant has shown that common issues of law predominate over individual issues. These actions challenge citations issued against Plaintiff by Defendant with respect to residents of Plaintiff’s long-term care facility. (Motion, Jackson Decl., ¶¶2-3 and Exhs. A-B.) Both citations were issued based on Plaintiff’s failure to supervise the residents at the same facility and pertain to violations of several same statutes, namely 42 Code of Federal Regulations, sections 483.25(d)(1) and (d)(2), and 72523. (Ibid.) Both actions will involve testimony of many of the same common and expert witnesses, involve the same parties, and the same attorneys. (Id. at ¶¶4-5.) Plaintiff’s opposition offers no contrary evidence to demonstrate that the different issues of fact will predominate as compared to common issues of law, or that the number of lay witnesses who might be called will predominate over the overlapping witnesses. (See Opp., Tyler Decl.)

Based on the foregoing, the cases raise common questions of law and overlapping witnesses such that consolidation for trial would avoid unnecessary costs or delay, and avoid duplication of procedure.

Conclusion

Moving party to give notice.