Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV28547, Date: 2024-10-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV28547    Hearing Date: October 2, 2024    Dept: 29

Laurie v. Estate of Wade Hampton Link IV
22STCV28547
Motion to Consolidate

Tentative

The motion is denied without prejudice.

Background

Moving parties seek to consolidate three cases pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court.  All of the cases, the moving parties assert, arise out of the same series of accidents on September 8, 2020, on or near westbound Ventura Boulevard in Los Angeles, California.

In this case, the first filed action (Case No. 22STCV28547), Plaintiff John D. Laurie (“Laurie”) filed a complaint on August 31, 2022, asserting causes of action for negligence against Defendants Estate of Wade Hampton Link IV (the “Estate”), Link Engineering Incorporated (“LEI”), and Does 1 through 20 (the “Laurie Action”).

On July 10, 2024, the Estate filed its answer.

On filing, the Laurie Action was assigned to Department 29 of the Spring Street Courthouse.

In the second filed action (Case No. 22STCV29023), Plaintiff Elahe Mokhtarzadeh (“Mokhtarzadeh”) filed a complaint on September 6, 2022, against Wade Hampton Link, LEO, and Does 1 through 50 (the “Mokhtarzadeh Action”)

On February 14, 2023, LEI filed its answer.

November 20, 2023, Plaintiff amended the complaint to name the Estate as Doe 1.

On April 25, 2024, Progressive Express Insurance Company (“Progressive”) filed an answer in intervention.

On filing, the Mokhtarzadeh Action was assigned to Department 29 of the Spring Street Courthouse.

In the third filed action (Case No. 23STLC05506), Geico General Insurance Company (“GEICO”) filed a complaint on August 28, 2023, against LEI and Does 1 through V (the “GEICO Action”).

On filing, the GEICO Action was assigned to Department 26 of the Spring Street Courthouse.

As is relevant here, on July 3, 2024, Progressive gave notice in the Mokhtarzadeh Action and the GEICO Action (but not the Laurie Action) that it was moving to consolidate the Laurie Action, the Mokhtarzadeh Action, the GEICO Action, and a fourth case pending in Ventura County Superior Court (Wilt v. Link Engineering).  The motion was set for hearing on July 15, 2024, in Department 43 in Ventura County Superior Court.  It is not completely clear to the Court what happened at that hearing, but based on the subsequent proceedings here it appears that Progressive’s motion to consolidate the four cases was denied.

On August 28, 2024, Progressive filed a notice of related case, identifying the Laurie Action, the Mokhtarzadeh Action, and the GEICO Action as related.  The Court deemed the cases related by Minute Order dated September 16, 2024, and reassigned the GEICO Action to Department 29.

On September 3, 2024, Progressive and the Estate filed this motion to consolidate the Laurie Action, the Mokhtarzadeh Action, and the GEICO Action for all purposes.

Plaintiff Laurie filed an opposition on September 17, 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 purpose of consolidation is to enhance trial court efficiency by avoiding unnecessary duplication of evidence and the danger of inconsistent adjudications.  (See Todd-Stenberg v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 976, 978-979.)

There are two types of consolidation: a complete consolidation for all purposes, and a more limited consolidation for trial or certain other specific purposes (such as pre-trial discovery).  (Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1127, 1147; Sanchez v. Super. Ct. (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 1391, 1396; see also 3 Weil & Brown, California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (2024), ¶¶ 12:340-341.3.)  When cases are consolidated for all purposes, “the two actions are merged into a single proceeding under one case number and result in only one verdict or set of findings and one judgment.”  (Hamilton, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 1147; see also Sanchez, supra, 203 Cal.App.3d at p. 1396.)  In a consolidation for limited purposes, “the two actions remain otherwise separate.”  (Hamilton, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 1147; see also Sanchez, supra, 203 Cal.App.3d at p. 1396.) 

“Consolidation under Code of Civil Procedure section 1048 is permissive, and it is for the trial court to determine whether the consolidation is for all purposes or for trial only.” (Hamilton, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 1149.)

The trial court should not consolidate actions where prejudice would result to any party.  (See State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1956) 47 Cal.2d 428, 430.)

California Rules of Court, rule 3.350, establishes a number of 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

Progressive and the Estate seeks an order consolidating for all purposes the Laurie Action, the Mokhtarzadeh Action, and the GEICO Action.  Plaintiff Laurie opposes the motion.

California Rules of Court, rule 3.350 sets forth a number of strict procedural requirements for a motion to consolidate.  Those requirements are not satisfied here. 

Rule 3.350, subdivision (a)(1)(C) requires that the notice of motion “must … [b]e filed in each case sought to be consolidated.”  No notice of motion was filed in the Mokhtarzadeh Action and the GEICO Action. 

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

The Court does not express any views on the merits of the consolidation motion or the arguments made in Plaintiff Laurie’s opposition.

Finally, the Court notes that Plaintiff Laurie also raises an issue with regard to reclassification of the GEICO Action and the payment of a reclassification fee.  If moving parties file a new motion, and if the motion is granted, consolidation will be contingent upon the reclassification and payment of the required fee.

Conclusion

The Court DENIES without prejudice the motion to consolidate for all purposes the Laurie Action, the Mokhtarzadeh Action, and the GEICO Action.

Moving Party to give notice.