Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case Number: 23TRCV02578, Date: 2023-11-20 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 23TRCV02578, Date: 2023-11-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23TRCV02578 Hearing Date: November 20, 2023 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling

HEARING DATE: November 20, 2023¿

CASE NUMBER: 23TRCV02578 (purportedly related to Case No. 22STCV33641)

CASE NAME: West American Insurance Company v. H. Salt of Southern California Inc., et al.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs, West American Insurance Company

RESPONDING PARTY: None (no opposition filed)

TRIAL DATE: Not Set.

MOTION:¿ (1) Motion to Consolidate

Tentative Rulings: (1) DENIED without Prejudice. A NORC must first be granted before a consolidation motion can be filed, and the NORC should be ruled upon by Judge Curtis Kin who has the first-filed of the to-be-consolidated cases

I. BACKGROUND¿¿

¿¿

A. Factual¿¿

This motion involves two cases. First, Case No. 23TRCV02578, West American Insurance Company v. H. Salt of Southern California, Inc., et al. and Case No. 22STCV33641 EMAAN, Inc., dba Baskin-Robbins v. H. Salt of Southern California, Inc., et al. The motion asserts that both cases involve the same fire at a Baskin Roibbins store in Redondo Beach.

Plaintiff in this higher numbered case, West American Insurance Company, now files this Motion to Consolidate.

B. Procedural

On September 27, 2023, Plaintiff, West American Insurance Company, filed their Motion to Consolidate. To date, no opposition has been filed.

II. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Plaintiff requested this Court take Judicial Notice of the following:

1. EMAAN, Inc., dba Baskin-Robbins v. H. Salt of Southern California, Inc., et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case Number 22STCV33641, filed October 17, 2022.

2. West American Insurance Company v. H. Salt of Southern California, Inc., et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case Number 23TRCV02578, filed August 7, 2023.

The Court GRANTS this request and takes judicial notice of the above. The Court also observes a consolidation stipulation filed in case no. 22STCV33641 to consolidate that matter with a different case (22STCV34193, the Massachusetts Bay case) than the one pending in Inglewood, but no subsequent stipulation to include this Southwest District case with the Stanley Mosk courthouse case(s) has been filed in that lower-numbered action before Judge Curtis Kin. However, no Notice of Related Case has been filed with Judge Kin that mentions the instant case.

III. 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

(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

(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.)

Los Angeles Superior Court Rule 3.3(g) relates to consolidation of cases. It states: “(1) Cases 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. (2) Upon consolidation of cases, the first filed case will be the lead case, unless otherwise ordered by the court. After consolidation, all future papers to be filed in the consolidated case must be filed only in the case designated as the lead case.”

B. Discussion

Preliminarily, the Court notes that the Plaintiff has not complied with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.350. The first requirement is to list all of the named parties in each case. This motion is devoid of this. However, Plaintiff filed their motion containing the captions of both cases sought to be consolidated. Local Rule 3.3(g) requires two or more cases that are sought to be consolidated to be first deemed to be related and assigned to the same department before they can be consolidated. That has not yet happened. California Rule of Court 3.300(h)(1)(A) provides as follows: “Where all the cases listed in the notice [of related case] are unlimited civil cases, . . . . the judge who has the earliest filed case must determine whether the cases must be ordered related and assigned to his or her department.” Accordingly, plaintiff must first apply to Judge Kin with a Notice of Related Cases and if the NORC is granted, then file the consolidation motion with Judge Kin. This motion is thus premature and filed in the wrong department and wrong courthouse. It is therefore denied without prejudice.