Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 21STCV23678, Date: 2023-01-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV23678    Hearing Date: January 25, 2023    Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Defendant’s motion to consolidate 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

Defendants move for consolidation with 22STCV22105, arguing that both cases arise out of the same vehicle collision and involve identical issues of law and fact. Further, the plaintiffs in both cases seek recovery from the same Defendants. Moreover, Defendants are insured by Harco National Insurance Company, policy number TP- 4330674-01. This policy is the only policy in place covering the claims in both actions.  

However, this action and 22STCV22105 have not been deemed related. However, both cases are assigned to this department.  Nevertheless, as these cases have not been related, the motion fails to comply with Local rule 3.3(g).

The Court finds that both cases arise from a multi-vehicle accident that occurred on August 14, 2020, and involve the same cause of action for motor vehicle and general negligence against Defendants. Thus, both actions involve common issues of law and fact.  Further, Defendants have served the notice of motion and motion on all non-dismissed parties who have appeared in the actions. Additionally, Defendant 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.   However, Defendant has not filed the notice of motion to consolidate in case 22STCV22105.  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 22STCV22105 and to relate these two cases.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Motion to consolidate is CONTINUED.  

Moving party is ordered to give notice.