Judge Mark E. Windham, Case 21STLC01000 2022-10-25 Tentative Ruling

If you desire to submit on the tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 26 at the Spring Street Courthouse until the morning of the motion hearing.

The e-mail address is SSCdept26@lacourt.org

The heading on your e-mail should contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent. Please note, the above e-mail address is to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries will not receive a response.

If there are no appearances by either side and no submission on the Court's tentative ruling, the matter will be placed OFF CALENDAR.

Due to overcrowding concerns of COVID-19, all parties shall make every effort to schedule a remote appearance via LACourtConnect (https://my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome) for their next hearing. The parties shall register with LACourtConnect at least 2 hours prior to their scheduled hearing time.

Defendants Roboam Arqueta and Jose Luis Lopez’s Motion to Consolidate is GRANTED. LASC CASE NOS. 21STCL01000 AND 22STLC01889 ARE CONSOLIDATED FOR ALL PURPOSES. LASC CASE NO. 21STCL01000 IS THE LEAD CASE. ALL FUTURE HEARING DATES ARE TO BE SCHEDULED UNDER LASC CASE NO. 21STCL01000.

Plaintiff Ana Quezada (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendants Roboam Arquella (erroneously sued as Roboan Arqueta) and Jose Luiz Lopez (“Defendants”) on February 5, 2021. Defendants filed an Answer on March 9, 2021. On June 30, 2022 the Court deemed this action related to Alliance United Insurance v. Roboam Osorino Arguello, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No.: 22STLC01889 (“LASC Case No. 22STLC01889”). Both cases are assigned to Department 26 in the Spring Street Courthouse.

On July 14, 2022, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Join Necessary Parties and ordered Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint within 20 days’ notice of the order. (Minute Order, 07/14/22.) Notice of the order was served on Plaintiff on July 14, 2022. (Notice of Ruling, filed 07/18/22.) Defendants filed the instant Motion to Consolidate on July 15, 2022. The Motion initially came for hearing on September 27, 2022 and was continued by the Court to allow Defendants to file a Notice of Motion that complies with Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.350(a)(1). (Minute Order, 09/27/22.) The Amended Notice of Motion was filed on September 27, 2022. No opposition has been filed to date.

(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

(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.)

Defendants move to consolidate this action with LASC Case. No. 22STLC01889 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. The notice of the Amended Notice of Motion to Consolidate now complies with Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.350(a)(1). As noted previously, the proof of service demonstrates compliance with Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.350(a)(2).

As to the merits, both actions arise out of the same incident, namely the automobile accident involving Plaintiff and Defendants that occurred on April 9, 2019, at 47th St. East & Palmdale Blvd., Palmdale, California. (Compl., ¶MV-1; LASC Case No. 22STLC01889 Compl., ¶MV-1; Mazarei Decl., ¶2.) Both actions will require resolution of common questions of law and fact pertaining to the liability of the persons involved in that accident and of the injuries sustained by each of the parties as a result. Substantively, consolidation of these actions is proper.