Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 23TRCV01544, Date: 2024-10-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23TRCV01544    Hearing Date: October 10, 2024    Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling 

HEARING DATE:                 October 10, 2024 

CASE NUMBER:                  23TRCV01544

CASE NAME:                        Brent Johnson v. Republic Services, Inc., et al.

MOVING PARTY:                Defendants, Consolidated Disposal Service, LLC and Terry Marshall

RESPONDING PARTY:       Brent Johnson and Charlotte Duncan (No Opposition, but Status Report)

TRIAL DATE:                        23TRCV01544 – Not Set.

                                                23TRCV02843 – Not Set.

                                                23STLC06227 – Not Set.

                                                23TRCV03406 – Not Set.

                                                23TRCV03505 – Not Set.

MOTION:                              (1) Motion to Consolidate 

Tentative Rulings:                  (1) Motion to Consolidate is DENIED on procedural grounds, without prejudice to it being renewed. Alternatively, Consolidated can circulate a stipulation to consolidate, collect signatures from counsel in all the cases sought to be consolidated, and then submit the stipulation with a proposed order

I. BACKGROUND

A.    Factual

This motion involves the present case, Case No. 23TRCV01544 Brett Johnson v. Republic Services Inc., et al. filed May 16, 2023, Case No. 23TRCV02843, Laura Del Carmen Soria, et al. v Consolidated Disposal Service, LLC, et al. filed August 29, 2023, Case No. 23STLC06227 Genaro Vazquez v Brent Johnson, et al. filed September 27, 2023, Case No. 23TRCV03406 Osazee Aiyanyi v Consolidated Disposal Service, LLC, et al. October 13, 2023, and Case No. 23TRCV03505 Chenita Watson v Brent Johnson, et al. filed October 20, 2023.

On May 16, 2023, Plaintiff in the present case, Brent Johnson filed a complaint against Defendants, Republic Services, Inc. and Terry Marshall (“Marshall”) alleging causes of action for: (1) Negligence/Negligence Per Se; and (2) Negligent Entrustment. The complaint asserts that it arises out of a collision which was negligently caused by Defendant Marshall when he made a right turn onto Western Ave. in his garbage truck, cutting off Plaintiff, and requiring him to swerve to avoid the truck. (Complaint, ¶ 10.) Plaintiff further alleged that after being forced to swerve to avoid the collision, Plaintiff rear-ended a city bus and sustained serious injuries along with five of the nine passengers on the bus. (Complaint, ¶ 10.)

            On September 12, 2024, Defendants in the present case, Terry Marshall and Consolidated Disposal Services, LLC (“CDS”) note that there have been several complaints, as listed above, that various counsel have filed regarding the same incident. Defendants Marshall and CDS move for this Court to consolidate the listed matters as they argue that the facts of each of the related cases are identical, and the evidence at trial will almost certainly be the same.

B.     Procedural

On September 12, 2024, Defendants Marshall and CDS filed this Motion to Consolidate Actions. To date, no opposition has been filed. On September 16, 2024, Brent Johnson and Charlotte Duncan filed a Status Report.

II. ANALYSIS

A.    Legal Standard

California Rules of Court, rule 3.350, subdivision (a) states in relevant part: 

(1) 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. 

(2) 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 non-represented parties in all of the cases sought to be consolidated; and 

(C) Must have a proof of service filed as part of the motion. 

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350, subd. (a)). Also, the consolidation statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 1048, states in relevant part: 

(a)  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. 

(b)  The court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy, may order a separate trial of any cause of action, including a cause of action asserted in a cross-complaint, or of any separate issue or of any number of causes of action or issues, preserving the right of trial by jury required by the Constitution or a statute of this state or of the United States. 

(Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a).)  

The granting or denial of the motion to consolidate rests in the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed except upon a clear showing of abuse of discretion. (See Fellner v. Steinbaum (1955) 132 Cal.App.2d 509, 511.)  

B.     Discussion

The Court notes that although Marshall and CDS complied with some of the requirements to file a motion to consolidate, they have failed to comply with all of the requirements. For example, Defendants Marshall and CDS’s motion does not list all named parties in each of the cases, does not name those parties who have appeared in each of the cases, nor does their motion contain the captions of all of the cases sought to be consolidated, with the lowest numbered case shown first (despite listing each of the case numbers.) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350, subd. (a)(1)(A), (B).) Further, the notice of motion to consolidate is not filed in each of the listed cases. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350, subd. (a)(1)(C).)

Thus, because the motion to consolidate is procedurally defective for the reasons listed above, this Court tentatively DENIES the motion, without prejudice to it being renewed in proper form.   Alternatively, CDS can circulate a stipulation to consolidate, collect signatures from counsel in all the cases sought to be consolidated, and then submit the stipulation with a proposed order.  The Court recognizes that there are discrete issues as to each plaintiff’s damages and potentially the reasonableness of medical care claimed, and possibly disputes as to pre-existing or subsequent incidents that might affect apportionment of damages.  Thus, the Court is unlikely to try all of the cases together absent a stipulation to do so, but the Court would be receptive to consolidation of discovery so that defendant need not attend multiple depositions nor be required to respond to multiple sets of standard discovery to the extent the discovery might seek the same information in multiple cases. 

III. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants Marshall and CDS’s Motion to Consolidate is tentatively DENIED without prejudice.

Plaintiff, Brent Johnson is ordered to give notice.