Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 23SMCV01131, Date: 2023-09-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV01131    Hearing Date: February 5, 2024    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

Plaintiff Jane Doe I (“Plaintiff”) moves to consolidate this case with related case number 23SMCV01272 for all purposes.  The motion is unopposed. 

ANALYSIS

Code of Civil Procedure, section 1048, subdivision (a) provides:

When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.

            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 “involve[e] a common question of law or fact.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a).)

            Here, the Court ordered the cases related on December 20, 2023, so the motion is procedurally proper.  (See December 20, 2023 Minute Order.)

            However, the Court does not find that consolidation would be in the best interest of the parties or promote judicial economy at this juncture.  While Plaintiff contends the two cases “share common questions of law and fact, arise out of the same or substantially identical factual scenarios, and involve the same defendants and principal actors,” ultimately, the cases involve separate incidents experienced by separate plaintiffs.  While there will be some, minimal overlap with respect to the common defendants, ultimately, the factual circumstances underlying each plaintiff’s claim, though similar in type, will largely involve facts and circumstances unique to each plaintiff. 

            To the extent factual or legal determinations made in one case apply with equal force to the other, the principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel will adequately protect judicial resources and mitigate the risk of inconsistent rulings.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to consolidate this case with related case number 23SMCV01272 is denied.

Plaintiff shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service regarding the same. 

DATED:  February 5, 2024                                                    ___________________________

                                                                                          Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court