Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV33027, Date: 2023-11-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV33027    Hearing Date: March 14, 2024    Dept: 29

Motion to Consolidate Cases filed by Defendant PIBE’S Auto LLC

Tentative

The motion is denied without prejudice.

Background

These cases arise out of a vehicle accident on May 16, 2022 on Interstate 210 in Sun Valley, California.

In this matter (Case No. 22STCV33027, the “Ornelaz Action”), on October 7, 2022, Plaintiffs Jean Ornelaz, individually and as successor-in-interest to decedent Thomas Ornelaz; Alicia Ornelaz; Natalie Ornelaz; Rachel Ornelaz; and Robert Ornelaz (collectively, the “Ornelaz Plaintiffs”) filed the complaint asserting causes of action for negligence, negligence-common carrier, negligent entrustment, negligent hiring, supervision, or retention, and loss of consortium against Defendants Amadeus F. Segura, Isabel Segura, Luis Segura Trucking, Inc., Segura Logistics Inc, Torlak Segura Transportation, Inc, and Does 1 through 20. On October 26, 2022, the Ornelaz Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) adding Pibe’s Auto LLC (“Pibe’s”) and Hector Ruiz Roa as defendants.

Luis Segura Trucking Inc. (erroneously sued as Torlak Segura Transportation Inc. and Segura Logistics) and Amadeus F. Segura filed their answer in the Ornelaz Action on November 28, 2022.

Pibe’s appeared in the Ornelaz Action on January 18, 2023, and filed a motion to strike the punitive damages allegations against it in the FAC.  That motion was granted, with leave to amend, but the Ornelaz Plaintiffs did not amend.

In the related matter (Case No. 23BBCV00602, the “Talamantes Action”), on March 15, 2023, Plaintiffs Rosa Talamantes, individually and as successor-in-interest to decedent Modesto Talamantes; and Jacob Talamantes (collectively, the “Talamantes Plaintiffs”), filed the complaint asserting causes of action for negligence, negligence-common carrier, negligent entrustment, negligent hiring, supervision, or retention, and loss of consortium against Defendants Amadeus F. Segura, Hector Ruiz Roa, Isabel Segura, Luis Segura Trucking, Inc., Pibe’s, Segura Logistics Inc., Torlak Segura Transportation, Inc, and Does 1 through 20. On August 28, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint.

Luis Segura Trucking Inc. and Pibe’s each filed answers in the Talamantes Action in September 2023.

On December 1, 2023, the Court determined that the two actions are related.  Both cases are now assigned to Department 29 in the Spring Street Courthouse.

On February 20, 2024, Pibe’s filed this motion to consolidate the cases for all purposes.

No party has filed any opposition to the motion.

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).) 

Discussion

Pibe’s requests an order consolidating for all purposes the Ornelaz Action and the Talamantes Action.  Both cases appear to arise out of the same accident and there is a considerable overlap in the defendants and the claims asserted against them.

California Rules of Court, rule 3.350 sets forth a number of mandatory procedural requirements for a motion to consolidate. 

One of those mandatory requirements, set forth in Rule 3.350, subdivision (a)(1)(C), is that the notice of motion “must … [b]e filed in each case sought to be consolidated.” 

That mandatory requirement is not satisfied here.  No notice of motion was filed in the Talamantes 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.