Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 20STCV48002, Date: 2024-10-10 Tentative Ruling

If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, please email
the clerk at SMCdept1@lacourt.org (and “cc” all other parties in the same
email) no later than 7:30 am on the day of the hearing, and please notify all
other parties in advance that you will not be appearing at the hearing.  Include the word "SUBMISSION" in
all caps in the subject line and include your name, contact information, the
case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you
submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing
party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motion, and the
Court may decide not to adopt the tentative ruling.

Case Number: 20STCV48002    Hearing Date: October 10, 2024    Dept: 1

20STCV48002           DOUGLAS DA SILVA MCGLEW vs FATAMEH SHAMIE

Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Relate Cases

TENTATIVE RULING:  The Shamie Defendants’ Motion to Relate Cases is DENIED.  Counsel for the Shamie Defendants to give notice to all parties in all three cases.

Standard

In the event that the pertinent judge under California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(h)(1) does not relate any of the cases set forth in a Notice of Related Case, Department 1 may relate the matters on noticed motion. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(h)(1)(D); LASC Local Rules, rule 3.3(f)(3).)

The Court Finds the Cases are Not Related

Cases are related when they (1) involve the same parties and are based on the same or similar claims, (2) arise from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact, (3) involve claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the same property, or (4) are likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a).)

The Shamie Defendants contend the cases are related based upon the second and fourth grounds enumerated in Rule 3.300(a).

The motion to relate cases filed by the Shamie Defendants is premised, in part, on Plaintiff’s deposition testimony in 20STCV48002. (Stepanyan Decl. ¶ 6; Ex. F.) Plaintiff testified at deposition that the accident giving rise to 21STCV16214 caused him increased pain. (Stepanyan Decl. ¶ 6; Ex. F at p. 42:24-43:8.) Plaintiff testified that the accident giving rise to 20STCV48002 caused all his injuries, the accident giving rise to 20STCV48811 was mild, and the accident giving rise to 21STCV16214 enhanced all his injuries sustained in the accident giving rise to 20STCV48002. (Stepanyan Decl., ¶ 6; Ex. F at p. 44:11-25.)

As demonstrated above, while each case involves a claim for negligence based upon an automobile collision, they do not involve the same parties. Each case involves a different defendant. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a)(1).) The cases also do not involve claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the same property within the meaning of Rule 3.300(a)(3). Each case involves separate automobile accidents that occurred on different dates at different locations.

The Shamie Defendants argue that the three separate cases, which stem from three separate car accidents, “all raise substantially identical questions of law and fact regarding the extent of his injuries and the causation thereof.” (Motion at p. 8:9-11.) The Court does not find that the actions arise from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact. (California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a)(2).) Here, there are three separate automobile accidents, which Plaintiff alleges caused various degrees of injury to his person. While the source and extent of Plaintiff’s injuries are relevant to all three actions, the Court does not find that “the actions arise from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a)(2).)

Next, the Shamie Defendants assert that “hearing these cases separately would result in substantial duplication of judicial resources.” (Motion at p. 8:21-22.) The Shamie Defendants also argue that “separate adjudications could lead to inconsistent findings regarding the causation and extent of McGlew’s injuries.” (Motion at p. 8:16-17.)

The Court disagrees.  Thes cases involve separate automobile accidents.  It will be necessary for the parties to prove causation and damages (or lack thereof) with respect to each incident whether the cases are related and consolidated or not.   

The Court finds 20STCV48002, 20STCV48811, and 21STCV16214 are not related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a) and the motion is DENIED.