Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 20STCV47524, Date: 2023-03-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV47524    Hearing Date: March 24, 2023    Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff’s motion to consolidate with related cases is CONTINUED.

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

Plaintiff moves for consolidation with 20STCV47561, 20STCV47597, and 20STCV47617, arguing that all cases arise out of the same vehicle collision and involve identical issues of law and fact. Consolidation will avoid unnecessary duplication of evidence and procedure, will avoid the substantial danger of inconsistent verdicts and will promote judicial economy.

The Court finds that all cases arise from the same vehicle accident that occurred on December 15, 2018, and involve the same cause of action for negligence against Defendant. Thus, these actions involve common issues of law and fact.  Plaintiff’s counsel represents all Plaintiffs. However, Plaintiff has not filed the notice of motion to consolidate in related cases 20STCV47561, 20STCV47597, and 20STCV47617.  Plaintiff has thus not complied with CRC Rule 3.350(a)(1). Therefore, the Court will continue the matter to allow Plaintiffs to file the notice of motion to consolidate in related cases 20STCV47561, 20STCV47597, and 20STCV47617.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Motion to consolidate is CONTINUED to April 24, 2023 at 1:30 p.m.  

Moving party is ordered to give notice.