Judge: Richard S. Whitney, Case: 37-2023-00021750-CU-PA-CTL, Date: 2024-04-12 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - April 11, 2024

04/12/2024  10:30:00 AM  C-68 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Richard S. Whitney

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Auto Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00021750-CU-PA-CTL LAMBERT VS BAUER [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING: DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS is DENIED.

Defendants JAMIE LYNN BAUER AND BYRON BAUER ('Defendants') seek to consolidate this action against them with an action in Los Angeles County – LAMBERT V. SANCHEZ, Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case Number 23TRCV01096. Plaintiff MANDY LAMBERT ('Plaintiff') opposes the motion.

Defendant essentially concedes that this motion should have been brought under CCP sections 403, 404, and/or 404.1. This Court has the power to consolidate actions only if it has jurisdiction over both actions. (Cochrane v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County (1968) 261 Cal.App.2d 201, 205.) This Court does not have jurisdiction over the action in Los Angeles. Therefore, Defendants cannot rely upon CCP section 1048. Defendants also cite California Rules of Court, Rule 3.350. Under California Rules of Court, Rule 3.350, the motion was supposed to be 'filed only in the lowest numbered case.' (CA ST CIVIL RULES Rule 3.350(a)(2)(A).) While the motion to consolidate that must be 'filed in each case sought to be consolidated,' '[i]s deemed a single motion for the purpose of determining the appropriate filing fee, [the] memorandums, declarations, and other supporting papers must be filed only in the lowest numbered case.' (CA ST CIVIL RULES Rule 3.350(a).) The other case (LAMBERT V. SANCHEZ) is the lowered numbered case. The motion to consolidate is denied.

Defendants also cite CCP section 403. CCP section 403 provides, in part: A judge may, on motion, transfer an action or actions from another court to that judge's court for coordination with an action involving a common question of fact or law within the meaning of Section 404. The motion shall be supported by a declaration stating facts showing that the actions meet the standards specified in Section 404.1, are not complex as defined by the Judicial Council and that the moving party has made a good faith effort to obtain agreement to the transfer from all parties to each action.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 403.) CCP section 404 provides, in part: When civil actions sharing a common question of fact or law are pending in different courts, a petition for coordination may be submitted to the Chairperson of the Judicial Council, by the presiding judge of any such court, or by any party to one of the actions after obtaining permission from the presiding judge, or Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3050128  42 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  LAMBERT VS BAUER [IMAGED]  37-2023-00021750-CU-PA-CTL by all of the parties plaintiff or defendant in any such action. A petition for coordination, or a motion for permission to submit a petition, shall be supported by a declaration stating facts showing that the actions are complex, as defined by the Judicial Council and that the actions meet the standards specified in Section 404.1.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 404.) CCP section 404.1 provides: Coordination of civil actions sharing a common question of fact or law is appropriate if one judge hearing all of the actions for all purposes in a selected site or sites will promote the ends of justice taking into account whether the common question of fact or law is predominating and significant to the litigation; the convenience of parties, witnesses, and counsel; the relative development of the actions and the work product of counsel; the efficient utilization of judicial facilities and manpower; the calendar of the courts; the disadvantages of duplicative and inconsistent rulings, orders, or judgments; and, the likelihood of settlement of the actions without further litigation should coordination be denied.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 404.1.) Defendants have not met the requirements of CCP section 403 or 404. Thus, even if this Court considered this a motion to transfer and/or to coordinate, the Court could not grant the motion. The motion is denied.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3050128  42