Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV20833, Date: 2024-06-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV20833    Hearing Date: June 3, 2024    Dept: 29

Motion to Consolidate Cases filed by Defendant Super Center Concepts, Inc. dba Superior Grocers.

Tentative

The motion is denied without prejudice.

Background

In this matter (Case No. 22STCV20833, the “Gomez Action”), on June 27, 2022, Lydia Marie Gomez (“Gomez”) filed the complaint asserting causes of action for premises liability and general negligence against Defendant Superior Grocers and Does 1 to 50. On March 8, 2024, Superior Grocers (“Superior”) filed an answer.

In the other matter (Case No. 22STCV18557, the “CLC Action”), on June 6, 2022, The Complete Logistics Company (“CLC”) filed a complaint against Super Center Concepts, Inc., Superior Grocers, and Does 1 through 50 for subrogation. On July 28, 2022, Super Center Concepts, Inc. dba Superior Grocers filed their answer.

On May 15, 2024, Superior filed this motion to consolidate the cases. 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 (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 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

Notice of Related Cases were filed in 22STCV20833 on March 13, 2024, and in 22STCV18557 on April 18, 2024. However, the cases are still in different departments and have not deemed related into a single department. The Department with the first filed case (Case No. 22STCV18557) must decide whether the cases are related and, only if they are related may a party seek to consolidate. (Local Rule 3.3(g).)

Even if the cases were properly related, the motion to consolidate does not meet the detailed mandatory procedural requirements set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a).  Counsel must fully comply with each of these requirements when filing a motion to consolidate.

Therefore, the Court DENIES the motion to consolidate 22STCV20833 and 22STCV18557without prejudice.

Conclusion

The Court DENIES without prejudice the motion to consolidate 22STCV20833 and 22STCV18557.

Moving Party to give notice.