Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV13491, Date: 2022-08-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV13491    Hearing Date: August 17, 2022    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

            Defendant Emily Linares Olivares moves to consolidate Byrd  v. Linares, et al. (Super. Ct. L.A. County, 2021, No. 21STCV13491) with Jackson  v. Linares, et al. (Super. Ct. L.A. County, 2021, No. 221STCV22327) for all purposes.  The motion is unopposed.

ANALYSIS

Per Local Rule 3.3, subdivision (g), “Cases may not be consolidated unless they are in the same department.  A motion to consolidate two or more cases may be noticed and heard after the cases, initially filed in different departments, have been related into a single department, or if the cases were already assigned to that department.”  (Super. Ct. L.A. County, Local Rules, rule 3.3(g)(1).)  Once the Court relates the cases, the Court may consolidate the actions and order a joint trial on matters that “involv[e] a common question of law or fact.”  (Code Civ. Proc., §1048, subd. (a).) 

Here, the Court has not related these cases, and only one is pending in this department.  Accordingly, the Court denies the motion as procedurally defective.  Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file proof of service of such.