Judge Sandy N. Leal, Case 2022-01256805 2023-08-10 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Sandy N. Leal, Case: 2022-01256805, Date: 2023-08-10 Tentative Ruling

Motion to Consolidate

Plaintiff Alexander Wilson’s Motion to Consolidate and to Continue Trial is DENIED.

Plaintiff seeks an order from the Court consolidating the following cases:

• Wilson v. Lyon Management Group, Inc. (Case No. 2022-01256805) (“First Action”)

• Wilson v. Schwarz (Case No. 2022-01269173) (“Second Action”)

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §1048(a), “[w]hen 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 action; 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.”

Rule 3.350(a) of the California Rules of Court sets forth the requirements for a motion to consolidate.

(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 nonrepresented parties in all of the cases sought to be consolidated; and

(Emphasis added.)

Plaintiff has not fully complied with the procedural requirements of Rule 3.350. No Notice of Motion was filed in Wilson v. Schwarz. Counsel for Defendant Blake Edward Schwarz has partially joined in this Motion, so failure to file the notice in that action is not prejudicial to the Defendant in the Second Action.

Code of Civil Procedure section 404.1 specifies that:

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.

“There are two types of consolidation: a complete consolidation resulting in a single action, and a consolidation of separate actions for trial.” (Sanchez v. Superior Court (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 1391, 1396). When cases are consolidated completely, which is usually ordered where the parties are identical and the causes could have been joined, the pleadings are considered merged, one set of findings is made, and one judgment is rendered. (Id.).

Plaintiff argues that the cases should be consolidated because although the actions arise from separatee accidents, his injuries, medical treatment and special damages are the same. The actions involve the same facts and questions of law, and consolidation of the actions would enhance trial court efficiency by eliminating duplicate evidence and procedures.

Defendant Blake Edward Schwarz joins in this Motion, to the extent he can later move to bifurcate and/or sever, as Defendant may deem necessary.

Defendants Lyon Management Group, Inc., Marke at South Coast Metro, LLC oppose this Motion. Defendants argue that the two lawsuits arise out of entirely distinct incidents that occurred nearly one year apart and involve different legal issues and witnesses. The Court agrees.

On 4-29-20, Plaintiff slipped and fell on property owned, managed, and operated by Defendants. Almost a year later on 4-14-21, Plaintiff alleges he was injured in a multi-vehicle accident. Plaintiff offers no evidence or any argument that similar questions of law exist between the two cases it seeks to consolidate. The First Action involves claims for premises liability/slip and fall. The Second Action states causes of action for vehicle negligence and negligence. These claims will require entirely distinct and unrelated investigation, discovery, percipient witnesses, expert witnesses, trial preparation, and jury instructions. Although Plaintiff asserts that the injuries sustained are related, he has presented no evidence in the form of a physician’s report or otherwise to support his assertion that “[b]oth actions arise from the same injuries and medical treatment.” The reply includes a list of medical providers and treatment that Plaintiff allegedly received, but there is no evidence that such treatment is related to injuries sustained in both incidents.

Further, Defendants assert that the witnesses and testimony will be different in both cases. The First Action will require discovery and testimony from property management personnel and may require expert testimony as to the standard of care and conditions at the property. Whereas the Second Action will logically involve testimony of the four drivers involved in the car accident, any witnesses to that accident, and accident reconstruction specialists. Defendants will be forced to attend the depositions of the witnesses and expert in the Second Action to protect their interests and to address damages issues as they arise. The jury is likely to be confused if the trials are consolidated because of the lack of commonality of the legal issues.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the Motion to Consolidate as Plaintiff has failed to show that this case should be consolidated with Wilson v. Schwarz pursuant to CCP 404.1.

The Motion to Continue Trial is also DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.