Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 24SMCV00280, Date: 2024-09-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV00280    Hearing Date: September 12, 2024    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

On January 19, 2024, Plaintiff Robert Estrada (“Estrada”) filed a complaint for damages (negligence) in 24SMCV00280 against Defendants Attila Peter Baly and Optimal Technology, LLC (“Defendants”).   

On the same date, Plaintiff Wajeeh Khan (“Khan”), represented by the same counsel as Estrada, filed a complaint for damages (negligence) in 24SMCV00281 against the same Defendants. 

Both actions allegedly arise from the same three-way automobile collision, the Defendants in both cases are identical, and the plaintiffs are represented by the same counsel.  The cases were related on July 2, 2024 and are pending in Department 207. 

Defendants now move to consolidate the two actions for all purposes.  The motion is unopposed.

ANALYSIS

Procedural Requirements

            Per Local Rules, rule 3.3(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).)

            Both cases were related on July 2, 2024, and are currently pending before the same department.  Therefore, there are no procedural hurdles to consolidation.

            Substantive Requirements

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.

            Both cases involve the same three-way vehicle collision and the same causes of action alleged against the same two defendants.  Further, both plaintiffs are represented by the same counsel.  Thus, there will inevitably be common questions of law and fact. 

            As such, the Court finds that consolidation is warranted.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Defendants’ unopposed motion to consolidate Estrada v. Baly (Super. Ct. L.A. County, 2024, No. 24SMCV00280) with Khan v. Baly (Super. Ct. L.A. County, 2024, No. 24SMCV00281).    

The Court further orders that the cases are consolidated for all purposes and Estrada v. Baly (Super. Ct. L.A. County, 2024, No. 24SMCV00280) is designated as the lead case per California Rules of Court, rule 3.350(b).  The Court further orders that all proceedings and hearing dates in Khan v. Baly (Super. Ct. L.A. County, 2024, No. 24SMCV00281) are vacated.

            Defendants shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file the notice with a proof of service forthwith.

DATED:  September 12, 2024                                               ___________________________

                                                                                          Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court