Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 21STCV41262, Date: 2022-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV41262    Hearing Date: December 6, 2022    Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

The Motion to Consolidate with 21STCV42300 is GRANTED.

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.) 

Consolidation, however, is not a matter of right; it rests solely within the sound discretion of the trial judge. (Fisher v. Nash Bldg. Co.¿(1952) 113 Cal.App.2d 397, 402.)¿ Actions may be thoroughly “related” in the sense of having common questions of law or fact, and still not be “consolidated,” if the trial court, in the sound exercise of its discretion, chooses not to do so.¿ (Askew v. Askew¿(1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 942, 964.)¿ It is not abuse of discretion to deny motion for consolidation of actions where parties in each action are different or issues are different.¿ (See¿Muller v. Robinson¿(1959) 174 Cal App 2d 511, 515.)¿ On the other hand, actions may be consolidated in the discretion of the trial court whenever it can be done without prejudice to a substantial right.¿ (Carpenson¿v.¿Najarian¿(1967) 254 Cal.App.2d 856, 862.)¿ 

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).)   

Discussion

Defendant moves for consolidation with 21STCV42300, arguing that both cases arise out of the same accident that occurred on November 18, 2019 in Glendale, and will require the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact and are likely to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different juries. Expert testimony concerning accident reconstruction, the nature and force of the impact, biomechanics, and human factors will be the same in both actions. Therefore, Defendant argues, consolidation of these cases will avoid duplication or inconsistent verdicts as well as save valuable Court time and duplicate costs.

Plaintiff argues that the case that Defendants seek to consolidate with the instant case involves the injury claims being made by the other occupants in the car that Plaintiff was a passenger in. Those other occupants are Plaintiff's son (driver of the car) and daughter-in-law (passenger). Their injuries are different in nature, extent, and severity from Plaintiff's injuries. For example, Plaintiff has undergone three rounds of epidurals to her lower back, which provided only temporary relief. Plaintiff has since been recommended to undergo surgery consisting of an L3 to LS decompression. Due to the severity of Plaintiff's injuries, she has treated with more medical providers than have the plaintiffs in the other case. Plaintiff will require more experts to prove her case than would the plaintiffs in the other case. Plaintiff argues consolidation may increase the amount of money the plaintiffs in the other case would need to spend on their case. The only common issue between the two cases is liability, which Plaintiff anticipates will not be at issue during trial. The remaining issues of causation and damages are individual issues rather than a common issue, thereby warranting the cases to be tried separately and apart. Plaintiff also argues that Defendant’s motion should be denied as the notice of motion does not comply with any of the requirements set forth in CRC, Rule 3.350(a).

This action and 21STCV42300were deemed related and assigned to this Department on March 9, 2022.  The motion thus complies with Local Rule 3.3(g). 

The Court first finds that although Defendant did not satisfy Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a)(1) in the notice of the motion, the motion itself does satisfy the requirements. Despite the procedural defect, the Court finds in favor of consolidation. This case stems from the same facts, the same vehicle accident, and involve the same Defendant. Moreover, Defendant explains that Defendant Nikogos has passed, so the defendant is the same in both cases. Moreover, the matter is straight-forward and thus, there is little risk of confusing the jury. Merely because the injuries are different does not warrant the duplication of evidence and the danger of inconsistent adjudications.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the motion to consolidate is GRANTED.  

Moving party is ordered to give notice.