Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV43642, Date: 2024-02-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV43642    Hearing Date: February 20, 2024    Dept: 29

Motion to Consolidate Cases filed by Defendant/Cross-Complainant/Cross-Defendant Nam Joong Yoon.

Tentative

The motion is denied without prejudice.

Background

There are three pending cases that reportedly arise out of the same automobile accident on October 18, 2020 near the intersection of Highway 395 and Gill Station Coso Road in Olancha, California.

Case No. 21STCV43642 was filed on November 29, 2021 by Plaintiffs the Estate of In Kyung Shim, by and through its successor in interest, Paul Eui Shim; Paul Eui Shim; Jae Seung Shim; and Jae Il Shim against Defendants Kelli Lee Miller, Nam Joong Yoon, Jong Suk Choi, Simon Han, Department of Transportation, and Does 1 through 50 (the “Shim Action”).

Case No. 22STCV33327 was filed on October 12, 2022, by Plaintiff Kelli Lee Miller against Jong Suk Choi, Nam Joong Yoon, and Does 1 through 20 (the “Miller Action”).

Case No. SI-CVCV-22-68455 was filed on October 5, 2022, by Jonathan D. Beard in Inyo County (the “Beard Action”).

By minute order dated January 26, 2024, the Shim Action and the Miller Action were related.  Both are now assigned to Department 29.  The Beard Action remains pending in Inyo County Superior Court.

On January 26, 2024, (amended on January 29, 2024) Defendant Nam Joong Yoon (“Moving Party”) filed this motion to consolidate the cases. No opposition has been filed. On January 31, 2024, Defendant Jong Suk Choi filed a notice of joinder. On February 14, 2024, Plaintiff Jonathan D. Beard’s counsel filed a declaration in support of consolidating the actions.

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.)

“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.)

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).)

Discussion

Moving Party requests three cases be consolidated: (1) Estate of In Kyung Shim, et al. v. Miller, et al., case no. 21STCV43642, (2) Miller v. Choi, et al., case no. 22STCV33327, and (3) Beard v. Yoon, et al., case no. SI-CVCV-22-68455. The first two cases were filed in Los Angeles County, related on January 26, 2024, and are currently assigned to Department 29. The third case was filed in, and remains pending in, Inyo County.

Moving Party asserts all three actions arise out of the same accident occurring on October 18, 2020, and that the actions meet the standard specified in Code of Civil Procedure sections 404.1 and 1048.

The Court has no power or jurisdiction over the Beard Action.  Accordingly, the request to consolidate the Beard Action is denied at this time without prejudice.

California Rules of Court, rule 3.350 sets forth a number of procedural requirements for a motion to consolidate.  One of those requirements, set forth in subdivision (a)(1)(C), is that the notice of motion “must … [b]e filed in each case sought to be consolidated.” 

Here, no notice of motion was filed in the Miller Action. 

Accordingly, the Court must deny the motion to consolidate.  As this denial is based on a procedural error, the denial is without prejudice.

Conclusion

The Court DENIES the motion to consolidate without prejudice.

Moving Party to give notice.