Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 21STCV02027, Date: 2023-02-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV02027    Hearing Date: February 9, 2023    Dept: 29

CASE NUMBER: 21STCV02027

[UNOPPOSED]

Background

On January 15, 2021, in this case (21STCV02027), Plaintiff Jose Rivas Perla filed a complaint for motor vehicle and general negligence against Defendants County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, and Johnny Daniel Perez stemming from a multi-vehicle accident that occurred on March 19, 2020. The complaint alleges that Defendant, Johnny Daniel Perez, during the course and scope of his employment as a Sheriff's Deputy, failed to operate his service vehicle in a safe manner and struck the rear of Adrian Soto's vehicle causing it to proper forward and strike the plaintiff's vehicle.

On January 20, 2021, in case number 21STCV02386, Plaintiff Adrian Soto also filed a complaint against Defendant Johnny Daniel Perez, County of Los Angeles, and Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, alleging a cause of action for negligence, stemming from the same accident that occurred on March 19, 2020.

On August 29, 2022, this Court found this action (21STCV02027) related with 21STCV02386, the Soto case. 

On January 3, 2022, Defendants filed the instant motion to consolidate.  No opposition has been filed.

Summary

            Moving Arguments

Defendant moves for consolidation with 21STCV02386, arguing that both cases arise out of the same vehicle collision and involve identical issues of law and fact. A single trial on all issues will avoid unnecessary costs and delays and will serve the interests of economy, convenience, and justice.      

Opposing Arguments

None filed.

Reply Arguments

None filed.

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 related action 21STCV02386 for all purposes.  Defendants contend common issues of law and fact exist in both actions because these actions arise from the same multi-vehicle accident that occurred on March 19, 2020. 

This action and 21STCV02386 were deemed related and assigned to this Department on August 29, 2022.  The motion thus complies with Local Rule 3.3(g). 

The Court finds that both cases arise from a multi-vehicle accident that occurred on March 19, 2020, and involve the same cause of action for negligence against Defendants. Thus, both actions involve common issues of law and fact.  Further, Defendant has served the notice of motion and motion on all non-dismissed parties who have appeared in the actions. However, Defendants have not has listed all named parties in each case, the parties who have appeared in the actions, and the names of their respective attorneys of record in the notice of motion to consolidate.   Moreover, Defendants have not filed the notice of motion to consolidate in related case 21STCV02386.  Defendant has thus not complied with CRC Rule 3.350(a)(1). Therefore, the Court will continue the matter to allow Defendant to file the notice of motion to consolidate in related case 21STCV02386.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Motion to consolidate is CONTINUED.