Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 23SMCV05956, Date: 2025-02-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV05956    Hearing Date: February 19, 2025    Dept: I

This is a motion to consolidate brought by plaintiff.  The motion is DENIED.  At issue are two cases.  One is a case by plaintiff against the carrier; the other is a case by plaintiff against a neighbor.  The case against the carrier alleges that State Farm insures both the plaintiff and the defendant.  When plaintiff sued the defendant, defendant tendered the case to State Farm, which hired counsel to defend defendant.  Later, defendant sued plaintiff in a cross action, purportedly using the same firm.  However, plaintiff is also represented by state farm.  Plaintiff seeks to force State Farm to defend plaintiff (with new counsel).  Plaintiff contends that its cause of action against the carrier is inextricably intertwined with the case against the neighbor such that they should be tried together.  The defense disagrees, contending that the two cases are different and alleged different sorts of things, although both stem from the neighbor dispute.

The court agrees that there are some common facts, but the gist of the claims will be different enough such that it makes no sense for a jury to hear them both.  One dispute is over coverage.  That does not go to issues surrounding the disputed easement or the parties’ underlying conduct (or alleged misconduct).  It is a coverage issue, pure and simple.  Having the cases tried together will unduly extend the length of the trial and confuse the jury, which will have to keep what are legally and factually separate claims separate even though the evidence is coming in together.  Keeping the cases separate makes sense to the court. 

Plaintiff contends that there could be inconsistent verdicts.  The court does not see how.  The verdicts will address different parties and involve different facts.  The court does not see the potential inconsistency and plaintiff has not articulated exactly how it might occur.

As such, the motion to consolidate is DENIED.  The court notes, however, that the cases remain related such that discovery for one would be usable in both.  The coverage issue against State Farm will likely need to be tried first.