Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: BC700926, Date: 2024-01-31 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: BC700926 Hearing Date: January 31, 2024 Dept: K
Plaintiff Oscar
Rideau’s Motion to Consolidate Cases is DENIED.
Background
On April 5, 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendants Smart & Final, LLC, Smart & Final Stores, LLC, Smart & Final Properties I, LLC, The Bread Factory Artisans, Inc. (“BFA”) and Does 1-100 for:
1.
Premises Liability
2.
General Negligence
On July 12, 2019, Smart & Final, Inc. and Smart & Final Stores, LLC (erroneously sued as Smart & Final, LLC and Smart & Final Properties I, LLC) (collectively, “Smart & Final”) filed two “Amendment[s] to [Cross-]Complaint,” wherein BFA was named in lieu of Roe 1 and The Bread Factory, Inc. was named in lieu of Roe 2.
On September 26, 2019, this case was transferred from Department 5 of the Personal Injury Courts to this instant department.
On November 25, 2019, Smart & Final filed a First Amended Cross-Complaint, asserting causes of action against Roes 1-50 for:
1.
Express Indemnification
2.
Equitable Indemnification
3.
Equitable Contribution
4.
Declaratory Relief
On December 17, 2019, BFA filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action against Smart & Final and Roes 1-20 for:
1.
Express Indemnity
2.
Equitable Indemnity
3.
Contribution
4.
Declaratory Relief
On September 27, 2023, the court related Case Nos. BC700926 and 23PSCV02834 and deemed Case No. BC700926 to be the lead case.
Plaintiff Oscar Rideau (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows: On August 9, 2013, Plaintiff was injured by a baked goods display cabinet.
On September 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting a cause of action against Smart & Final, BFA and Does 1-100 for:
1.
Products Liability
On September 27, 2023, the court related Case Nos. BC700926 and 23PSCV02834 and deemed Case No. BC700926 to be the lead case.
On November 13, 2023, Smart & Final filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action against BFA and Roes 1-50 for:
1.
Express Indemnification
2.
Equitable Indemnification
3.
Equitable Contribution
4.
Declaratory Relief
On December 27, 2023, an “Interlocutory Judgment” was filed.
A Case Management Conference and a Status Conference Re: Related Cases are set for January 31, 2024.
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).)
“There are two types of consolidation: a complete consolidation resulting in a single action, and a consolidation of separate actions for trial. Under the former procedure, which may be utilized where the parties are identical and the causes could have been joined, the pleadings are regarded as merged, one set of findings is made, and one judgment is rendered. In a consolidation for trial, the pleadings, verdicts, findings and judgments are kept separate; the actions are simply tried together for the sake of convenience and judicial economy.” (Sanchez v. Superior Court (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 1391, 1396 [citation omitted].)
“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 [“CRC”] Rule 3.350(a)(1).) “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.” (CRC Rule 3.350(b).)
Discussion
Plaintiff moves the court for an order consolidating this instant action (i.e., “Case #1”) with case styled Rideau v. Smart & Final LLC, et al., Case No. 23PSCV02834 (i.e., Case #2”) for all purposes.
Procedural Deficiencies
At the outset, the court notes that Plaintiff’s motion fails to comply with CRC Rule 3.350, subdivision (a) (i.e., “[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”). Plaintiff’s counsel is admonished in this regard.
Merits
Plaintiff’s request for consolidation is denied. The motion was filed on October 5, 2023. The court subsequently entered an Interlocutory Judgment in Case #2 on December 27, 2023, which expressly states that “Bread Factory's Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10 is SUSTAINED. An Interlocutory Judgment shall be entered in favor of Bread Factory and no trial of other issues shall be had until the final determination in Case No. BC700926.” (Emphasis added).