I. BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff Ryan Taylor (“Taylor”) filed Case No. 22STCV33792 action against defendants Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“LACMTA”) and Anuja Rane (“Rane”) for injuries arising from a March 15, 2022 collision between LACMTA’s bus and Rane’s motor vehicle (the “Taylor Action”). Taylor alleges he was a passenger on the bus, and that both LACMTA and Rane operated their respective vehicles in an unsafe manner. 

Rane filed his own action against LACMTA and Jon Paul Jimenez (Doe 1), Case No. 22STCV37815, alleging LACMTA’s bus blew through a “keep clear” section and struck the left side of Plaintiff Rane’s vehicle (the “Rane Action”). 

The actions 22STCV33792 and 22STCV37815 have been deemed related and are pending in Department 31. (Min. Order Nov. 29, 2023.) LACMTA now moves to consolidate the two actions, arguing that the actions involve the same issues and facts concerning the same accident. Plaintiff Rane opposes the motion, and LACMTA filed a reply. 

II. MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE  

CCP § 1048 grants discretion to the trial courts to consolidate actions involving common questions of law or fact. A consolidation of actions does not affect the rights of the parties. The purpose of consolidation is to avoid unnecessary costs or delay, avoid duplication of procedure, particularly in the proof of issues common to both action, and avoid inconsistent results by hearing and deciding common issues together. (See Estate of Baker (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 471, 485.) The granting or denial of a motion to consolidate rests in the trial court's sound discretion, and will not be reversed except upon a clear showing of abuse of discretion. (Feliner v. Steinbaum (1955) 132 Cal.App.2d 509, 511.) Each case presents its own facts and circumstances, but the court generally considers the following: (1) timeliness of the motion: i.e., whether granting consolidation would delay the trial of any of the cases involved; (2) complexity: i.e., whether joining the actions involved would make the trial too confusing or complex for a jury; and (3) prejudice: i.e, whether consolidation would adversely affect the rights of any party. (See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1956) 47 Cal.2d 428, 430–431.) 

In deciding whether to grant a motion to consolidate, the court should weigh whether the common issues predominate over the individual issues and whether any risks of jury confusion or prejudice to the parties outweighs the reduction in time and expense that would result from consolidation. (Todd-Stenberg v. Shield (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 976, 978.)   

LACMTA is the operator of the bus, Taylor was the passenger of the bus, and Rane was operating the automobile involved in the collision with the bus. LACMTA is a defendant to both the Taylor and Rane Actions, and Rane himself is a defendant to the Taylor Action. LACMTA argues there is a common question of law and fact between the two actions, and that consolidation would promote trial convenience and economy as to the liability portion of this case.   

In opposition, Rane argues video evidence demonstrates that the bus was illegally in the lane it was driving in at the time of the crash, and that there is no reasonable dispute regarding liability. Rane argues there are more differences than similarities, because each Plaintiff sustained different injuries and have different loss of earnings claims. 

In reply, LACMTA argues that the party at fault cannot be solely determined by a video, and that there are issues concerning comparative negligence of Rane. LACMTA reiterates that consolidation would avoid the risk of inconsistent jury verdicts concerning the issue of liability. 

Here, the Court finds that the two actions involve identical legal and factual issues regarding circumstances of the bus v. motor vehicle accident and overlapping issues regarding liability. The Court will not consider Rane’s contention that liability is not at issue due to video surveillance, as that is a matter for expert witness opinion and for jury determination. Consequently, the actions will have overlapping evidence and witnesses. While Rane argues the damages between each plaintiff is distinct in each action, there is no dispute that both actions seek a determination of apportionment of fault regarding damages resulting therefrom. Rane’s contention that consolidation will make the matter unduly complex because each plaintiff will have different witnesses attesting to their individual damages is unavailing. Juries are routinely relied on to determine multiple complicated issues in cases, and Rane does not properly establish how asking a jury to consider each plaintiff’s different injuries would make trial chaotic. It is not uncommon for multiple plaintiffs, with various injuries, to all litigate in the same action. Consolidation of the two actions is necessary to ensure the issues of liability are properly determined. The Court does not find that consolidation will confuse the jury. Moreover, the risk of inconsistent findings at trial outweighs Rane’s claimed prejudice. 

In terms of Rane’s request to bifurcate the issue of liability and damages, given that in the Personal Injury Court system this case will be tried by a different court than the Court ruling on this motion, it appropriate for the trial judge to determine whether bifurcation is warranted. Thus, Rane’s request to bifurcate is denied without prejudice as to Rane raising this issue for the trial judge to consider, on his own motion, at the time the judge rules upon motions in limine. 

III. CONCLUSION 

LACMTA’s motion to consolidate is GRANTED. Rane’s request to bifurcate is DENIED without prejudice.  

22STCV33792 is set for trial on October 16, 2024 and 22STCV37815 is set for trial on June 3, 2024. The Court sets the consolidated cases for trial on ___________________, at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. 31.  The FSC in the consolidated cases is set for ________________, at 10:00 a.m. in Dept. 31. All hearing dates in 22STCV37815 are vacated.  The parties must reschedule any hearings in 22STCV37815 for hearing in 22STCV33792.  All future papers must be filed in 22STCV33792 only and all future hearings must be scheduled in 22STCV33792 only. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

Dated this 8th day of April 2024