Judge Mark E. Windham, Case 22STLC03594 2023-01-13 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.

No tentative ruling to issue on Plaintiff Steven M. Palmer’s Motion for Order Relating and Coordinating Cases. Counsel of record for both parties are to appear at the hearing to address the propriety of consolidation in light of the issues raised herein.

On May 26, 2022, Plaintiff Steven M. Palmer (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant Vanessa Moreno (“Defendant”). On August 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Related Case with respect to Moreno v. Palmer, LASC Case No. 22STSC01555 (“the Small Claims action”). The Small Claims action was filed by Defendant against Plaintiff on April 22, 2022 and assigned to Department 1A. (LASC Case No., 22STSC01555, Plaintiff’s Claim, 04/22/22.) On June 21, 2022, the Small Claims Court entered judgment in favor of Defendant. (LASC Case No., 22STSC01555, Minute Order, 06/21/22.) Plaintiff filed an appeal of the judgment in the Small Claims case, which remains pending. (LASC Case No. 22STSC01555, Minute Order, 08/17/22.)

On September 8, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Deem Cases Related and Coordinate Cases in the Limited Jurisdiction Court. The Motion came for hearing on October 5, 2022, and was continued pending further proceedings in the Small Claims Court. (Minute Order, 10/05/22.) On October 18, 2022, the Small Claims Court transferred LASC Case No., 22STSC01555 to Department 26 in the Spring Street Courthouse. (LASC Case No. 22STSC01555, Notice of Reassignment, 10/17/22.)

The Court notes that in Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Relating and Coordinating Cases, the only authority cited was Civil Procedure section 404.1, which pertains to actions that meet the Judicial Council’s definition of “complex.” (See Code Civ. Proc., § 404.) This is not the relevant authority with respect to the instant action and Small Claims case. Rather, the Small Claims Court having now transferred the Small Claims Action to Department 26 in the Spring Street Courthouse, the question remains whether the cases should be consolidated for any purpose, including trial. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 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.)

Substantively, these cases concern the same factual and legal issues because they both arise out of the same motor vehicle accident. (Compl., ¶¶MV-1, MV-2; LASC Case No. 22STSC01555, Order to go to Small Claims Court, ¶3.) In both actions, the parties dispute who is at fault for the accident and liability for the resulting injuries and property damage. (Compl., ¶¶MV-1, MV-2; LASC Case No., 22STSC01555, Order to go to Small Claims Court, ¶3.) The instant action, therefore, is essentially a compulsory cross-claim with respect to the Small Claims action. Under normal circumstances, these cases should be consolidated for all purposes, including trial.

However, the procedural posture of the Small Claims action presents a wrinkle. The Small Claims court issued a judgment in favor of Defendant on June 21, 2022 and Plaintiff filed an appeal of that judgment on July 7, 2022. (LASC Case No., 22STSC01555, Notice of Entry of Judgment, 06/21/22; LASC Case No., 22STSC01555, Notice of Appeal, 07/07/22.) Under Code of Civil Procedure section 116.710, a defendant with respect to the plaintiff’s claim may appeal the judgment to the superior court in the county where the action is heard. (Code Civ. Proc., § 116.710, subd. (b).) The appeal from the small claims judgment must be “taken by filing a notice of appeal with the clerk of the small claims court . . . “not later than 30 days after the clerk delivered or mailed notice of entry of judgment to the parties.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 116.750, subds. (a), (b).) The small claims appeal is to be a trial de novo that “consist[s] of a new hearing before a judicial officer other than the judicial officer who heard the action in the small claims division.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 116.770, subd. (a).)

Crucially, the trial de novo must be conducted pursuant to the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 116.770, which differs significantly from a regular civil trial. Specifically, the hearing shall be informal, pretrial discovery as set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.010 is not permitted, no party has a right to a jury trial, and no statement of decision is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 116.770, subd. (c).) The trial de novo is also subject to the requirements for hearings in the small claims court, set forth at Code of Civil Procedure section 116.510, et seq. and are supplemented by Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.950, et seq. (Code Civ. Proc., § 116.770, subd. (c); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.950.) Additionally, unlike the timing of a civil trial, the hearing de novo is to be scheduled by the clerk of the court for the earliest available date.

Given the significant procedural differences between a Small Claims trial de novo and a civil trial, which include the conduct of pre-trial discovery, the Court has serious doubts that consolidation of these actions is possible, let alone, proper. No tentative ruling on the Motion for Order Relating and Coordinating Cases is issued at this time. Counsel of record for both parties are to appear at the hearing to address the propriety of consolidation in light of the issues raised herein.

No tentative ruling to issue on Plaintiff Steven M. Palmer’s Motion for Order Relating and Coordinating Cases.