Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 22STCV02666, Date: 2022-08-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV02666    Hearing Date: August 18, 2022    Dept: 74

22STCV02666           ELICIA JOHNSON vs 800 MARIPOSA, L.P., et al.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate

TENTATIVE RULING:  The motion is DENIED.

Background

On January 24, 2022, Plaintiff Elicia Johnson filed this action against Defendants 800 Mariposa, L.P., Ben Gentry LTD., LLC, JKT, Inc., and Wayne Young. On March 18, 2022, Plaintiff dismissed JKT, Inc. without prejudice. The complaint asserts causes of action for: (1) negligence – wrongful death; and (2) negligence – survivor’s action. The complaint alleges Duncan Campbell, a resident at the Mariposa Apartment, died from stab wounds inflicted by Defendant Wayne Young while on the premises. The complaint alleges the owners of the apartment building owed a duty of care to prevent the stabbing by evicting Young. 

On May 26, 2022, the Court issued an order overruling Defendants’ demurrer and denying the motion to strike. The Court’s order also noted “that a Notice of Related Case was filed in this case and not in the case that counsel are seeking to relate. The Notice of Related Cases must be filed in all cases listed in the notice.”

On June 30, 2022, Defendants 800 Mariposa, L.P. and Ben Gentry LTD., LLC filed a cross-complaint against Defendant Wayne Young for indemnification, apportionment of fault, and declaratory relief.

Motion

On July 27, 2022, Plaintiff Elicia Johnson filed the instant motion seeking to consolidate this action with Los Angeles Superior Court case 22STCV10481 Campbell, et al v. 800 Mariposa, L.P, et al.

The complaint in 22STCV10481 filed by Jacqueline Campbell and Suzanne McKenzie similarly asserts causes of action for (1) negligence – wrongful death; and (2) negligence – survivor’s action based upon allegations that Duncan Campbell, a resident at the Mariposa Apartment, died from stab wounds inflicted by Defendant Wayne Young while on the premises.

The motion is unopposed. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(c).)

Motion to Consolidate

Standard

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1048(a), “[w]hen 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.” 

“A consolidation of actions does not affect the rights of the parties. The purpose of consolidation is merely to promote trial convenience and economy by avoiding duplication of procedure, particularly in the proof of issues common to both actions.” (Wouldridge v. Burns (1968) 265 Cal.App.2d 82, 86.) “Under the statute and the case law, there are thus two types of consolidation: a consolidation for purposes of trial only, where the two actions remain otherwise separate; and a complete consolidation or consolidation for all purposes, where the two actions are merged into a single proceeding under one case number and result in only one verdict or set of findings and one judgment.” (Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1127, 1147.)  “Consolidation under Code of Civil Procedure section 1048 is permissive, and it is for the trial court to determine whether the consolidation is for all purposes or for trial only.” (Id. at 1149.)

A motion to consolidate must also comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.350.

Plaintiff’s Motion is Procedurally Defective

The case sought to be consolidated, 22STCV10481 Campbell, et al v. 800 Mariposa, L.P, et al., is currently pending in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse. Pursuant to Los Angeles Superior Court Local Rule 3.3(g), “[c]ases 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.” Accordingly, the Court cannot consolidate the two actions at this time.

Plaintiff’s Notice of Related Case was rejected for filing in 22STCV10481 on August 12, 2022. Plaintiff must correct this filing error.

Additionally, “[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. R. Ct., rule 3.350(a).) Plaintiff did not file the notice of motion in 22STCV10481.

Due to these procedural deficiencies, the motion is DENIED without prejudice to Plaintiff refiling the motion should the cases be related into the same department.