Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 220STCV12565, Date: 2022-08-17 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 220STCV12565 Hearing Date: August 17, 2022 Dept: 29
TENTATIVE
Defendant’s motion
to consolidate with related case is DENIED.
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
Plaintiff moves for a court order
consolidating this action with 21STCV31099,
contending that common issues of law and fact exist
in both actions. Plaintiff argues the single most predominant issue present in
both actions is the nature and extent of Plaintiff Sachi Moskowitz 's injuries
and damages, including whether such injuries and damages were caused by the
first accident (this case), by the second accident (21STCV31099), or by some other defense-claimed cause.
“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).)
This action and 21STCV31099 have
not been deemed related and are assigned to different Departments. The motion
thus does not comply with Local Rule 3.3(g). Similarly,
Plaintiff has not complied with Cal. Rules of Court, rule
3.350(a)(1) in that a notice of this motion in has not been filed in 21STCV31099.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the Motion to consolidate is DENIED.
Moving party is
ordered to give notice.