Judge Melvin D. Sandvig, Case Number: 23CHCV00493, Date: 2024-11-20 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 23CHCV00493, Date: 2024-11-20 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F47, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2247. Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 23CHCV00493 Hearing Date: November 20, 2024 Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 11/20/22

Case #23CHCV00493

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

Motion filed on 5/17/24.

MOVING PARTY: Defendant State of California

RESPONDING PARTY: all other parties

NOTICE:

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order consolidating for all purposes the following cases:

Joseph Carnes; Samantha Bibian v. State of California, acting by and through its Department of Parks and Recreation; Ana Alexis Garcia; Ana M. Roque Rivas; CVIN, LLC and Does 1-30, inclusive (LASC Case No. 23CHCV00493) and

Christopher Armstrong; Consuelo Pereida v. State of California, acting by and through its Department of Parks and Recreation; Ana Alexis Garcia; Ana Roque Rivas; CVIN, LLC (LASC Case No. 23CHCV01454).

RULING: The motion is granted.

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

These actions arise out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 4/3/22. On that date, Decedents Brandon Armstrong and Justin Joseph Carnes (Decedents) were riding motorcycles westbound, uphill on Pipeline Road, a dirt road, in Gorman, California. At the same time that Decedents approached the top of the hill going westbound, Defendant Ana Alexis Garcia traveled eastbound in a 2021 Polaris RZR Pro XP 4 (the Vehicle), uphill on Pipeline Road. Defendant Ana M. Roque Rivas was the record owner of the Vehicle driven by Defendant Garcia.

Due to the incline of the hill and Defendant Garcia’s alleged speed, neither Decedents nor Defendant Garcia could see the respective vehicles approaching from the opposite direction. Decedents’ motorcycles and Defendant Garcia’s vehicle collided head-on resulting in the deaths of Decedents.

Pipeline Road is an off-road trail in the Hungry Valley State Vehicular Recreation Area. A known characteristic of Pipeline Road is that a pipeline runs along the right side of the dirt road. Pipeline Road is characterized as a “more difficult trail.”

Plaintiffs in both actions allege that the pipeline in the road, a buried electrical conduit, is a deformity because it “forced all traffic to the left side of the road effectively running a two-lane road into a one lane bottle neck.” (See Armstrong Complaint ¶12; Carnes Complaint ¶9). Plaintiffs Armstrong and Pereida allege that there were no warning signs regarding the blind spot or deformity in the road. (Armstrong Complaint ¶12).

The parents and successors-in-interest of each Decedent filed separate actions against the State of California, Garcia, Rivas and CVIN which have been related. On 5/17/24, the State of California filed and served the instant motion seeking an order consolidating for all purposes the following cases:

No opposition or other response to the motion has been filed.

ANALYSIS

Since these two cases arise from a common set of facts, present common questions of law and fact, and the complaints make common allegations, the Court finds that consolidation for all purposes, including trial, is warranted and will serve to promote trial convenience and economy by avoiding duplication of procedure and delay, particularly as to duplication of proof of issues common to both cases. See CCP 1048(a). Additionally, consolidation will avoid inconsistent outcomes.

The Court notes that the motion contends that “[t]he only factual difference between these two cases is that the Carnes Complaint dropped all claims against Defendant County of Los Angeles while the Armstrong Complaint retains its claims against Defendant County of Los Angeles.” (See Motion, p.5:18-20). However, the County of Los Angeles was dismissed, without prejudice, from the Armstrong complaint on 11/9/23 and from the Carnes complaint on 3/14/24. As such, the County of Los Angeles is no longer a party in either case.

CONCLUSION

The motion is granted.

Based on the above ruling, the Court finds that the hearing on the Motion to Consolidate scheduled for 11/22/24 in Armstrong (23CHCV01454) which seeks the same relief is moot. Therefore, that hearing is advanced to this date and placed off calendar.