Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV32107, Date: 2024-05-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV32107    Hearing Date: May 31, 2024    Dept: 29

Motion to Consolidate Cases filed by Plaintiff Christine Tanaka

Tentative

The motion is denied without prejudice.

Background

Two related cases arise out of a vehicle accident on October 2, 2020, on the southbound 5 Freeway near to the intersection with the 2 Freeway in Los Angeles.

On August 17, 2022, in Case No. 22STCV26733, Beth Gellar filed a complaint against Sunrise Dressingrooms, Inc. (“Sunrise”), Robert McLellan (“McLellan”), and Does 1 through 50.  On September 29, 2022, McLellan and Sunrise filed their answer.

On September 30, 2022, in this case, Case No. 22STCV32107, Christine Tanaka (“Tanaka”) filed a complaint against McLellan, Sunrise, Amazon Content Services, LLC (“Amazon Content”), and Does 1 through 25.  On June 5, 2023, McLellan and Sunrise filed an answer.  On August 7, 2023, McLellan, Sunrise, and Amazon Content filed an amended answer.  On December 5, 2023, Plaintiff amended her complaint to name Pickrow, Inc. d/b/a Pictures in a Row (“Pickrow”) as Doe 1.  On January 18, 2024, Pickrow filed an answer to the complaint.

On January 5, 2024, the Court determined that the two actions are related.  Both cases are now assigned to Department 29 in the Spring Street Courthouse.

On May 10, 2024, Tanaka filed this motion to consolidate the two 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

Tanaka requests that the two related cases, Case No. 22STCV26733 and Case No. 22STCV32107, be consolidated for all purposes. 

There are a number of mandatory procedural requirements for a motion to consolidate set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 3.350.  One of these is that the motion must list all named parties in each case, all names of those who have appeared, and all counsel of record.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a)(1)(A).)  Another mandatory procedural requirement is that the motion must contain the caption of all cases sought to be consolidated.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a)(1)(B).)  A third mandatory procedural requirement is that the notice of motion must be filed in each case sought to be consolidated.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a)(1)(C).)  None of that was not done here.  Accordingly, the Court must deny the motion, without prejudice, on procedural grounds.

The Court is aware that a stipulation was attached to the moving papers.  There is, however, no signature on the stipulation on behalf of Pickrow, one of the parties in Case No. 22STCV32107.

Conclusion

The Court DENIES, without prejudice, on procedural grounds, the motion to consolidate Case Nos. 22STCV26733 and 22STCV32107.

Moving Party to give notice.