Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV17974, Date: 2023-08-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV17974    Hearing Date: August 31, 2023    Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

The motion is DENIED without prejudice. 

Background¿ 

This action arises out of a truck accident that occurred on March 30, 2021 on the I-10 Freeway near Wabash Avenue in San Bernardino County.  On May 12, 2021, Plaintiff Allan Geovanny Gomez (“Gomez”) filed a complaint alleging a single claim of negligence against Defendants G&G Transport Logistics Corp (“G&G”).; Jaguar Transportation Inc. (“Jaguar”); Jose Luis Pena (“Pena”); and Does 1 through 50. Gomez alleged that he, G&G, and Jaguar all reside in Los Angeles County and that Pena resides in Riverside County.  The Court will refer to this action as the “Gomez Action.”

On September 7, 2022, Gomez filed a First Amended Complaint (the “FAC”) against the same defendants except for Jaguar, which was omitted.  In the FAC, Gomez alleges that he is a resident of Los Angeles County, that Pena is a resident of Riverside County, and that G&G has its principal place of business in Los Angeles County and is domiciled here.

On September 9, 2022, G&G and Pena (“Defendants”) filed their answer to the FAC.

On July 26, 2023, Defendants filed this motion to transfer and consolidate noncomplex cases under Code of Civil Procedure section 403.  According to Defendants, there is an action pending in San Bernardino County Superior Court, Case No. CIVSB222589, filed on November 18, 2022, that arises out of the same accident and involves some of the same parties.  Defendants attach to their moving papers a non-conformed copy of the complaint in this other action, which identifies the plaintiff as Alissa Ravay Galaviz (“Galaviz”) and the defendants as Jaguar, G&G, Gomez, and Does 1 through 50.  Defendants’ memorandum states that Galaviz filed an amended complaint on March 26, 2023, naming Pena as Doe 1, and that none of the defendants have been served.  The Court will refer to this action as the “Galaviz Action.”

No opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 403 provides the following: 

A judge may, on motion, transfer an action or actions from another court to that judge’s court for coordination with an action involving a common question of fact or law within the meaning of Section 404.  The motion shall be supported by a declaration stating facts showing that the actions meet the standards specified in Section 404.1, are not complex as defined by the Judicial Council and that the moving party has made a good faith effort to obtain agreement to the transfer from all parties to each action.  Notice of the motion shall be served on all parties to each action and on each court in which an action is pending.  Any party to that action may file papers opposing the motion within the time permitted by rule of the Judicial Council.  The court to which a case is transferred may order the cases consolidated for trial pursuant to Section 1048 without any further motion or hearing. 

(Code Civ. Proc., § 403.)  Section 404.1 controls coordination of actions, and states: 

Coordination of civil actions sharing a common question of fact or law is appropriate if one judge hearing all of the actions for all purposes in a selected site or sites will promote the ends of justice taking into account whether the common question of fact or law is predominating and significant to the litigation; the convenience of parties, witnesses, and counsel; the relative development of the actions and the work product of counsel; the efficient utilization of judicial facilities and manpower; the calendar of the courts; the disadvantages of duplicative and inconsistent rulings, orders, or judgments; and, the likelihood of settlement of the actions without further litigation should coordination be denied. 

(Code Civ. Proc., § 404.1.)  Finally, section 1048 authorizes the Court to order, for any actions involving a common question of law or fact a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters at issue, and a court may order the actions consolidated.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a).)  

California Rule of Court 3.500 provides additional requirements and procedures for a motion to transfer and coordinate under Code of Civil Procedure section 403, as well as setting forth guidance for the findings that a court must make to grant such a motion.

A motion under section 403 “must be supported by a declaration stating facts showing that: (1) The actions are not complex; (2) The moving party has made a good-faith effort to obtain agreement to the transfer and consolidation from all parties to the actions; and (3) The moving party has notified all parties of their obligation to disclose to the court any information they may have concerning any other motions requesting transfer of any case that would be affected by the granting of the motion before the court.”  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.500(c).)  Rule 3.400 sets forth factors for a court to consider in making a ruling on whether a case is complex.

If the court grants a motion under section, “the order must specify the reasons supporting a finding that the transfer will promote the ends of justice, with reference to the following standards: (1) The actions are not complex; (2) Whether the common question of fact or law is predominating and significant to the litigation; (3) The convenience of the parties, witnesses, and counsel; (4) The relative development of the actions and the work product of counsel; (5) The efficient utilization of judicial facilities and staff resources; (6) The calendar of the courts; (7) The disadvantages of duplicative and inconsistent rulings, orders, or judgments; and (8) The likelihood of settlement of the actions without further litigation should coordination be denied.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.500(d).)  

Discussion 

The Court recognizes that it may be appropriate to grant the relief requested by Defendants at some point in the future but denies the motion without prejudice at this time for a variety of reasons.

First, there is no proof of service showing service “on all parties to each action and on each court in which an action is pending.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 403.)  This is not just an issue of procedural niceties: each party in each action is entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard on whether the Galaviz Action should be transferred to Los Angeles County Superior Court and consolidated with the Gomez Action.  At least based on the statute, this appears to apply to all parties, not just the parties who have appeared so far in either action.  In addition, by statute, the notice must be given to the court in which the Galaviz Action is pending.

Second, and relatedly, Defendants state that there has not yet been service on the defendants in the Galaviz Action, and that raises a concern that this motion may be premature.  Whether the Galaviz Action should be transferred to Los Angeles County, and whether the two actions should be consolidated, may be better analyzed after all parties have been served and appeared; this will provide the Court with a better and more clear understanding of what the scope of the two actions is, where the parties and the potential witnesses reside, and what the litigation (whether consolidated or separate) will look like.

Third, the declaration from Defendants’ counsel, although touching on each matter identified in Rule of Court 3.500(c), is not particularly robust and does not develop the factual record sufficiently to give the Court the information it needs to prepare an order that complies with the requirements of Rule 3.500(d). 

Conclusion 

Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion is DENIED without prejudice.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.