Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV32013, Date: 2024-02-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV32013    Hearing Date: February 29, 2024    Dept: 29

Motion to Consolidate Cases filed by Trust Y Inc. and Seungsan Baek.

Tentative

The motion is GRANTED.

Background

On September 20, 2022, Plaintiff Christopher Bludso filed his complaint in this matter, Case No. 22STCV32013 (the “Bludso Action”), against Defendants Trust Y Inc., a California Corporation; Trust Y Inc., an unknown entity; Seungsan Baek; and Does 1 through 50, asserting claims for motor vehicle negligence, negligent entrustment, hiring, retention, supervision, and hiring, and negligence per se arising out of a vehicle accident on April 20, 2021.  Defendants Trust Y Inc. and Seungsan Baek filed their answer on November 29, 2022.

On April 13, 2023, Plaintiff County of Los Angeles filed its complaint in Case No. 23STCV08177 (the “County Action”) against Defendants Trust Y, Inc., Seungsan Baek, and Does 1 through 50 for subrogation of worker’s compensation benefits arising from injuries incurred from what appears to be the same vehicle accident.  Defendants Trust Y Inc. and Seungsan Baek filed their answer on July 18, 2023.

On July 28, 2023, the Court determined that the Bludso Action and the County Action were related cases.

On January 23, 2024, Defendants Trust Y Inc. and Seungsan Baek (collectively “Defendants”) filed this motion to consolidate the two cases for all purposes.

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

Defendants have satisfied all of the procedural requirements for a motion to consolidate under California Rules of Court rule 3.350(a).

Defendants have also shown that there is good cause for consolidation of the two cases for all purposes.  Both cases arise from the same automobile accident occurring on April 20, 2021, Defendants are the same in each matter, the witnesses and evidence will overlap to a significant degree, and there are common legal and factual issues.

No opposition has been filed.

Accordingly the motion to consolidate for all purposes is granted.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the motion to consolidate for all purposes the Bludso Action (Case No. 22STCV32013) and the County Action (Case No. 23STCV08177).  The low numbered case is the lead case.  All subsequent filings are to be made in the lead case.  All future hearings and dates in the County Action are vacated.

Moving Party to give notice.