Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 21STCV39942, Date: 2023-08-23 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV39942, Date: 2023-08-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV39942 Hearing Date: August 23, 2023 Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

The motion to consolidate is DENIED without prejudice.

Background

On October 29, 2021, in this case (21STCV39942), Plaintiff Armen Voskerchyan filed a complaint for motor vehicle and general negligence against Defendant Serj Homayak arising from a multi-vehicle accident on July 14, 2020.

On March 25, 2021, in case number 21STLC02415, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company filed a complaint against Defendants Serj Homayak Marganian and Ayleen Hacopian for subrogation recovery stemming from the same accident that occurred on July 14, 2020.

A third case (22STCV21568) has been deemed related but is not the subject of this motion to consolidate.

On January 6, 2023, Defendants Serj Homayak and Ayleen Hacopian filed the instant motion to consolidate case numbers 21STCV39942 and 21STLC02415. No opposition has been 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¿(A) 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; (B) include the captions of all the cases sought to be consolidated; and (C) be filed in each case sought to be consolidated.¿ (Cal. Rules of¿Court, rule 3.350, subd. (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, subd. (g)(1).)¿

Discussion

Defendants move to consolidate case numbers 21STCV39942 and 21STLC02415, as both cases arise from the same multi-vehicle collision on July 14, 2020, involve common issues of law and fact, and consolidation would avoid unnecessary costs, delays, and duplication of proof.

The Court finds the cases have been related and are pending in this department with 21STCV39942 as the lead case. Based on the complaints, it appears that both cases arise from the same accident that occurred on July 14, 2020. However, while the date of the accident in the Notice of Motion is identified as July 14, 2020, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities identifies two other dates (10/13/19 and 7/20/20) as the date of the accident.

It is also unclear which type of consolidation Defendants seek – consolidation for trial purposes or for all purposes.

Further, the Court finds the Notice of Motion does not 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. Also, Defendants have not filed the Notice of Motion in case 21STLC02415. Thus, Defendants have not complied with CRC Rule 3.350, subdivision (a)(1).

For the foregoing reasons, the motion to consolidate is DENIED without prejudice.

Conclusion

The Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to consolidate without prejudice.

Moving parties to give notice.