Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 24STCV19965, Date: 2025-02-27 Tentative Ruling

The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.

Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.

Case Number: 24STCV19965    Hearing Date: February 27, 2025    Dept: 34

Plaintiffs Choonsik Kim and Hyunah Oh’s Motion to Consolidate is DENIED.

Background

            On August 8, 2024, Plaintiff Kilian Paul (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Emile Muchtar, Uber Technologies, Inc., Raiser, LLC, and Rasier-CA, LLC (“Defendants”) arising from a vehicle collision that occurred on September 11, 2022, alleging a cause of action for negligence.

            On October 18, 2024, the court granted the parties’ Stipulation to Strike Punitive Damages from the complaint.

            On October 28, 2024, Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., Raiser, LLC, and Rasier-CA, LLC filed an answer to Plaintiff’s complaint.

            On October 30, 2024, Defendant Emile Muchtar filed an answer to Plaintiff’s complaint.

            On December 3, 2024, the court found case 24STCV22549 (“Related Case”) related to the present action.

            On December 13, 2024, Plaintiffs of the Related Case, Choonsik Kim and Hyunah Oh (“Moving Plaintiffs”), filed this Motion to Consolidate. On January 22, 2025, Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., Raiser, LLC, and Rasier-CA, LLC (“Responding Defendants”) filed an opposition. On January 28, 2025, Moving Plaintiffs filed a reply.

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).)

“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).)

Under this court’s local rules, “[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.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.3(g)(1).)

Discussion

            Moving Plaintiffs move the court to consolidate case 24STCV22549 (“Related Case”) with this present matter. (Motion, at p. 6.) Moving Plaintiffs argue that both cases are personal injury actions arising out of the same motor vehicle collision involving the same question of fact and law. (Ibid.) Moving Plaintiffs also argue that consolidating these matters would avoid unnecessary costs, delays, and avoid inconsistent rulings. (Ibid.)

            In opposition, Responding Defendants contend that there is an arbitration agreement between the parties in the related action. (Opp., at p. 3.) Responding Defendants argue that the presence of parties who are not subject to arbitration introduces a procedural conflict if the cases were consolidated. (Ibid.) As such, Responding Defendants request that if the court determines that consolidation is appropriate, the court should preserve Responding Defendants right to arbitrate and clarify that consolidation will not impair the enforcement of the arbitration agreement. (Ibid.)

            In reply, Moving Plaintiffs argue that the actions share questions of fact and overlapping questions of law, requiring the actions to proceed separately would require duplication of judicial resources and would potentially involve conflicting or inconsistent verdicts and/or rulings on identical issues. (Reply, at p. 2.)

            On February 4, 2024, the court held a hearing on this motion. The court continued the hearing until Responding Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration in the Related Case had been heard and decided.

            The court granted Responding Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration as to Moving Plaintiffs and stayed all proceedings until completion of the arbitration. As a result, this court declines to consolidate the two actions.  Moving Plaintiffs are not parties to this action and consolidating the matters at this time will not promote judicial efficiency or convenience.  In fact, consolidation of the two cases may only confuse the issues and facts as some of the parties are subject to arbitration. Moreover, consolidation of actions is not a matter of right but rests within sound discretion of the trial judge, and his decision will not be reviewed except upon clear showing of abuse of discretion.  (Fisher v. Nash Bldg. Co. (1952) 113 Cal.App.2d 397.)   

Conclusion

Plaintiffs Choonsik Kim and Hyunah Oh’s Motion to Consolidate is DENIED.