Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV47187, Date: 2024-03-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV47187    Hearing Date: April 16, 2024    Dept: 29

Defendant’s Motion to Consolidate

Tentative

The motion is denied without prejudice on procedural grounds.

Background

Two related cases arise out of a motor vehicle accident on January 3, 2020, on the 10 Freeway in Santa Monica.

In this case, Case No. 21STCV47187, Plaintiffs Margarita Marquez, Maria Marquez, and Primitiva Estrada (collectively, the “Marquez Plaintiffs”) filed their complaint on December 28, 2021, asserting one cause of action for negligence against Jason Adam Overlander and Does 1 through 50 (the “Marquez Action”).   

In the other case, Case No. 21STCV47478, Plaintiffs Jennie Journo Weingarten and Lishai Weingarten (collectively, the “Weingarten Plaintiffs”) filed their complaint on December 30, 2021, asserting causes of action for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence against Jason Adam Oberlander, Margarita Marquez, and Does 1 through 50 (the “Weingarten Action”).

Defendant Jason Adam Oberlander (erroneously named as Jason Adam Overlander in this case) (“Defendant”) filed his answers to the two complaints on July 27, 2022.

On November 2, 2022, the Marquez Action and the Weingarten Action were related.  

On June 27, 2023, the Weingarten Plaintiffs filed a request to dismiss, without prejudice, their claims against Margarita Marquez.

The trial date in each of the two cases is currently set for July 24, 2024.

Defendant filed this motion to consolidate the two matters on May 3, 2023. 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 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.)

California Rules of Court, rule 3.350, sets forth certain mandatory procedural requirements for a motion to consolidate.  The rule states:

“(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

On May 3, 2023, Defendant filed this motion in the Marquez Action.  He did not at that time, or since, file the notice of motion in the Weingarten Action.  This is a mandatory requirement.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a)(1)(C).) 

The notice of motion also does not list all named parties in each case, the names of those who have appeared, and the names of their respective attorneys of record.  This is also a mandatory requirement.  (Id., rule 3.350(a)(1)(A).)

Accordingly, the Court must deny the motion to consolidate, without prejudice, on procedural grounds.

Conclusion

The Court DENIES the motion to consolidate Case Nos. 21STCV47187 and 21STCV47478, without prejudice, on procedural grounds.

Moving Party to give notice.