Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV23900, Date: 2024-01-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV23900    Hearing Date: February 29, 2024    Dept: 29

Motion to Consolidate Cases filed by Plaintiff Sergio Antonio Vega Campos

Tentative

The motion is DENIED without prejudice.

Background

Plaintiff Jose E. Ayla Rios and Ruben Jimenez Baltazar (“Plaintiffs”) filed their Complaint in this matter, Case No. 22STCV23900, on July 25, 2022 (the “Rios Action).  In the Rios Action, Plaintiff asserts causes of action for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence against Sergio Antonio Vega Campos (“Vega Campos”), Artemio Reyes Huertas (“Reyes Huertas”), and Does 1 through 20, arising out of an alleged vehicle accident on June 7, 2021, on Alameda Street between 109th and 110th Street in Los Angeles, California.

On November 9, 2022, Vega Campos filed his Answer to the Complaint and a Cross-Complaint against Reyes Huertas and Roes 1 through 20.

On December 9, 2022, Reyes Huertas filed his Answer to the Complaint and a Cross-Complaint against Vega Campos and Roes 1 through 100.  The Court, at the request of Reyes Huertas, dismissed the Cross-Complaint with prejudice on January 31, 2024.

On December 19, 2022, Vega Campos filed his Answer to the Cross-Complaint.

On June 7, 2023, Vega Campos filed the Complaint in a new case, Case No. 23CMCV00836 (the “Vega Campos Action”), asserting causes of action for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence against Reyes Huertas and Does 1 through 25.  The Vega Campos Action appears to arise out of the same vehicle accident as the Rios Action. 

On June 23, 2023, the Court deemed the Rios Action to be related to the Vega Campos Action.

On November 7, 2023, Vega Campos filed this motion to consolidate the two cases. 

On November 21, 2023, Reyes Huertas filed a demurrer to the Complaint in the Vega Campos Action. 

On December 5, 2023, Reyes Huertas filed an opposition to this motion to consolidate.

This motion to consolidate was heard on January 18, 2024.  The Court continued the hearing so that the demurrer filed by Reyes Huertas in the Vega Campos Action could be heard first.  The demurrer was heard and overruled on February 8, 2024.

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.)

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

Vega Campos moves to consolidate the Rios Action and the Vega Campos Action.  Both cases arises out of the same automobile accident and involve the same or overlapping parties.

As noted above, California Rules of Court, rule 3.350 sets forth a number of procedural requirements for a motion to consolidate.  One of those requirements is that

the notice of motion “must … [b]e filed in each case sought to be consolidated.”  (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.350(a)(1)(C).  Here, however, no notice of motion was filed in the Vega Campos Action.

Accordingly, the Court must deny the motion to consolidate.  The denial is based on a procedural defect and therefore is without prejudice.

Conclusion

The Court DENIES the motion to consolidate without prejudice.

Moving Party to give notice.