Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 19STCV42021, Date: 2023-01-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV42021    Hearing Date: January 30, 2023    Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

The Motion to consolidate is GRANTED.  Case 19STCV42021 and 20STCV33097 are deemed RELATED.

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).)  The purpose of consolidation is to enhance trial court efficiency by avoiding unnecessary duplication of evidence and the danger of inconsistent adjudications.  (See Todd-Stenberg v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 976, 978-979.) 

A Notice of Motion to consolidate cases must (1) include a list of all named parties in each case, the names of those who have appeared, and the names of their respective attorneys of record; (2) include the captions of all the cases sought to be consolidated; and (3) be filed in each case sought to be consolidated.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a)(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.”  (Super. Ct. L.A. County, Local Rules, rule 3.3(g)(1).) 

Discussion

Defendants move for a court order consolidating this action with 20STCV33097 for all purposes.  Defendant contends common issues of law and fact exist in both actions because these actions arise from the same accidents that occurred on December 1, 2018. Defendants filed a stipulation to consolidate these cases, but received a notice of rejection of electronic filing. The notice set forth the following reason for rejection: these cases involve different accidents that occurred one year apart and in separate counties. Defendants argue they contacted the clerk to explain that these cases do, in fact, involve the same accident. Defendants’ counsel explained that the unrelated motor vehicle accident which was the subject of Plaintiff Frierson’s first and second causes of action had been dismissed, thus leaving only the accident in the last cause of action that occurred on December 1, 2018, against Defendants, which is the same accident as the Young v. Kwong, 20STCV33097, matter. The clerk informed Defendants that a motion would be required to consolidate these matters.

The Court finds that both cases arise from the same accident that occurred on December 1, 2018, and involve the same cause of action for negligence. Thus, both actions involve common issues of law and fact. Moreover, the defendants are defendants in both actions.  Moreover, Defendant has served the notice of motion and motion on all non-dismissed parties who have appeared in the actions.

While these cases have not been deemed related, the Court finds they are related within the meaning of Rule 3.300, in that they involve the same parties, are based on the same claims, and arise from identical incidents. Thus, the Court deems RELATED case number 19STCV42021 and 20STCV33097, and the motion to consolidate is GRANTED.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Motion to consolidate is GRANTED.  Case numbers 19STCV42021 and 20STCV33097 are deemed RELATED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.