Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV41389, Date: 2024-03-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV41389    Hearing Date: March 25, 2024    Dept: 29

Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate Cases

Tentative

The motion is denied without prejudice.

Background

Based upon the complaints in these two case, it appears that Plaintiff Calvin Holland (“Plaintiff”) was involved in two alleged motor vehicle accidents in 2020.

Plaintiff filed a complaint on November 10, 2021, and an amended complaint on November 24, 2021, in Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 21STCV41389 against Defendants Emad Rasis Fransis, Peter Gabraeil, A Plus Transportation, LLC and Does 1 through 100 for injuries arising out of an accident allegedly occurring on June 18, 2020, on the 57 Freeway, near Diamond Bar Boulevard, in the City of Diamond Bar (the “Fransis Action”).  The named defendants filed their answer on February 2, 2022.

On December 15, 2021, Plaintiff filed a complaint in Riverside County Superior Court Case No. CVRI2105625 against Defendants Yahya Altuntas, Drill Tech Drilling and Shoring, Inc, and Does 1 through 100 for injuries arising out of an accident allegedly occurring on August 26, 2020, on the 91 Freeway, near Main Street, in the City of Corona (the “Altuntas Action”).  The named defendants filed their answer on May 20, 2022.

Based on a stipulation of the parties, the Altuntas Action was transferred to Los Angeles County Superior Court.  The case was received here on June 28, 2023, and assigned Case No. 23STCV15023.

On December 1, 2023, the Fransis Action and the Altuntas Action were deemed related.

On February 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed this motion to consolidate the two cases for all purposes.  The notice of motion and motion was filed only in the Fransis Action, but all parties in both cases were served.

The defendants in the Altuntas Action filed an opposition in the Altuntas Action on March 12.  Plaintiff filed his reply in the Fransis Action on March 19.

The Court notes that the Fransis Action is set for trial on April 19, 2024.  No trial date has been set in the Altuntas Action.

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 (a).)

The trial court should not consolidate actions where prejudice would result any party, e.g., when consolidation would cause a litigant to need to adopt adverse litigations positions in a single trial.  (See State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1956) 47 Cal.2d 428, 430.)

Per Local Rule 3.3, subdivision (g), “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).)  Once the Court relates the cases, the Court may consolidate the actions and order a joint trial on matters that “involv[e] a common question of law or fact.”  (Code Civ. Proc., §1048, subd. (a).)

California Rules of Court rule 3.350 sets forth a number of mandatory procedural requirements for a motion to consolidate:

“(a) Requirements of motion

(1)  A notice of motion to consolidate must:

(A)  List all named parties in each case, the names of those who have appeared, and the names of their respective attorneys of record;

(B)  Contain the captions of all the cases sought to be consolidated, with the lowest numbered case shown first; and

(C)  Be filed in each case sought to be consolidated.

(2)  The motion to consolidate:

(A)  Is deemed a single motion for the purpose of determining the appropriate filing fee, but memorandums, declarations, and other supporting papers must be filed only in the lowest numbered case;

(B)  Must be served on all attorneys of record and all nonrepresented parties in all of the cases sought to be consolidated; and

(C)  Must have a proof of service filed as part of the motion.”

Discussion

California Rule of Court, rule 3.350(a)(1)(C), establishes, as a mandatory requirement for a motion to consolidate, that the notice of motion must be “filed in each case sought to be consolidated.”  That requirement has not been satisfied here.  Plaintiff filed the notice of motion in the Fransis Action but not the Altuntas Action.

Accordingly, the Court must deny the motion at this time.  Because the denial is based on a procedural defect, the motion is denied without prejudice.   

Conclusion

The Court DENIES the motion to consolidate without prejudice.

Moving Party to give notice to all counsel in both actions.