Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 3STCV06773, Date: 2024-03-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 3STCV06773    Hearing Date: March 4, 2024    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:        Motion to Consolidate for All Purposes

Moving Party: Frederic Vuong

Resp. Party:    None

The Motion to Consolidate is DENIED. 

BACKGROUND:

        On March 28, 2023, Norman Anpree (“Anpree”) filed Judicial Council Form PLD-PI-001, Complaint—Personal Injury, Property Damage, Wrongful Death against Temple City Auto Repair, Becker Tire, LLC, Frederic Vuong (“Vuong”), and Ronilo Felicitas Quidolit (“Quidolit”).

        On June 22, 2023, Vuong filed Judicial Council Form PLD-PI-003, Answer—Personal Injury, Property Damage, Wrongful Death.

        On July 12, 2023, the Court found related cases 23STCV03883, 23STCV05161, 23STCV06678, and 23STCV06773. The Court designated 23STCV03883 as the lead case.

        On September 29, 2023, Becker Tire, LLC filed its Answer to the Complaint.

        On December 15, 2023, Vuong filed Motion to Consolidate for All Purposes Cases Nos.: 23STCV03883; 23ZSTCV05161; 23STCV06773; and 23STCV06678 (“Motion to Consolidate”).

        On January 16, 2024, Henry Hakiman (doing business as Temple City Auto Repair) and John Hakiman (doing business as Temple City Auto Repair) filed their Answer to the Complaint.

        On January 29, 2024, all four cases were transferred to Department 34.

        On February 9 and 14, 2024, peremptory challenges were filed and accepted on cases 23STCV03883 and 23STCV06678, respectively.

        On February 20, 2024, Quidolit filed: (1) Answer to the Complaint; and (2) Judicial Council Form PLD-PI-002, Cross-Complaint—Personal Injury, Property Damage, Wrongful Death against Frederic Vuong (“Vuong”), Temple City Auto Repair, and Becker Tire, LLC.

        On February 21 and 23, 2024, cases 23STCV03883 and 23STCV06678, respectively, were unrelated from cases 23STCV05161 and 23STCV06773.

ANALYSIS:

I.          Legal Standard

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a).)

“A notice of motion to consolidate must:

“(A) List all named parties in each case, the names of those who have appeared, and the names of their respective attorneys of record;

“(B) Contain the captions of all the cases sought to be consolidated, with the lowest numbered case shown first; and

“(C) Be filed in each case sought to be consolidated.”

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a)(1)(A)–(C).)

“The motion to consolidate:

“(A) Is deemed a single motion for the purpose of determining the appropriate filing fee, but memorandums, declarations, and other supporting papers must be filed only in the lowest numbered case;

“(B) Must be served on all attorneys of record and all nonrepresented parties in all of the cases sought to be consolidated; and

“(C) Must have a proof of service filed as part of the motion.”

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a)(2)(A)–(C).)

“An order granting or denying all or part of a motion to consolidate must be filed in each case sought to be consolidated. . . .” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350(c).)

II.       Discussion

Vuong moves the Court to consolidate cases 23STCV03883, 23STCV05161, 23STCV06678, and 23STCV06773. (Motion to Consolidate, p. 3:13–19.)

        Considering that two of these cases have recently been unrelated and been sent to two different departments, consolidation of all four cases is inappropriate. Thus, the Motion to Consolidate must be denied.

        If any of the parties believes that consolidation of the two cases that remain in Department 34 is appropriate, they may move for such consolidation.

III.     Conclusion

The Motion to Consolidate is DENIED.