Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV34544, Date: 2025-05-22 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV34544 Hearing Date: May 22, 2025 Dept: 29
Harin v. Nunez
22STCV34544
Motion to Consolidate Cases filed by Defendants Towwerks, LLC dba Viertels, and
Ricardo Nunez.
Tentative
Motion is denied without prejudice.
Background
On
October 27, 2022, Gisele Harin and Zachary Spindle filed a complaint (Case No. 22STCV34544) against Ricardo Nunez (“Nunez”),
Towwerks, LLC dba Viertels (“Viertels”), City of Los Angeles (“City”), and Los
Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”) for (1) negligence, (2) negligent
entrustment, (3) negligent hiring, (4) vicarious liability, and (5) violation
of Vehicle Code § 17001 causes of action arising out of an automobile accident
occurring on April 29, 2022.
On
April 11, 2024, Luis Antonio Marroquin Siquinajay, and Madelyn D. Marroquin, a
minor by and through her guardian ad litem Luis Marroquin Siquinajay, filed a
complaint (Case No. 24STCV09096) against Nunez and Towwerks, LLC dba Viertels
Northeast Division & Viertels Central for motor vehicle negligence and
general negligence causes of action arising out of an automobile accident
occurring on April 29, 2022, on Riverside Drive near Newell Street in Los
Angeles.
On
July 30, 2024, Towwerks, LLC dba Viertels Northeast Division & Viertels
Central filed an answer in 24STCV09096.
On
September 24, 2024, Nunez filed an answer in 24STCV09096.
On
October 18, 2024, Viertels and Nunez each filed an answer in 22STCV34544.
On
April 16, 2025, the matters were related. (April 16, 2025 Minute Order.)
On April 29, 2025, Nunez and Viertels (collectively
“Moving Defendants”) filed the motion to consolidate Case Nos. 22STCV34544
and 24STCV09096. 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
The Moving
Defendants request an order consolidating Case Nos. 22STCV34544 and 24STCV09096.
Reviewing the motion, Moving
Defendants has not met the procedural requirements of California Rules of
Court, rule 3.350 by filing notice of motion in both respective actions.
Accordingly,
the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the motion to consolidate Case Nos. 22STCV34544
and 24STCV09096.
Conclusion
The Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the motion to consolidate Case Nos. 22STCV34544
and 24STCV09096.