Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV00424, Date: 2024-01-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV00424    Hearing Date: March 20, 2024    Dept: 29

Motion to Consolidate Cases filed by Plaintiff Bonifacio Brizuela Ochoa.

Tentative

The motion is denied without prejudice.

Background

Two related cases arise out of an alleged vehicle accident on January 23, 2021, at or near the intersection of Fountain and Normandie Avenues in Los Angeles.  

On January 9, 2023, Plaintiff Bonifacio Brizuela Ochoa (“Ochoa”) filed the Complaint in this action, Case No. 23STCV00424, against Defendant Crisanto Ramon Vega (“Vega”) and Does 1 through 10, asserting one cause of action for motor vehicle negligence (the “Ochoa Action”).  On June 21, 2023, Vega filed an Answer to the Complaint.

Meanwhile, on January 23, 2023, Vega filed a complaint against Ochoa in the small claims division, Case No. 23STSC00355, seeking damages from the same accident (the “Vega Action”).  

On March 1, 2023, Ochoa filed a notice of related case.  That filing was rejected.  

On March 13, 2023, Ochoa filed this motion for an order relating and consolidating the two actions.  

On January 26, 2024, the motion came on for hearing.  The Court granted the motion to relate the cases and denied the motion to consolidate, without prejudice, for procedural reasons.  The Court noted that Ochoa could renew the motion but any party bringing a motion to consolidate “must strictly comply with all substantive and procedural requirements, including, but not limited to, those set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 3.350.”  The Court also ordered that prior to filing any motion to consolidate, “counsel for the parties are directed to meet and confer.”

Five days later, on January 31, 2024, Ochoa filed a renewed motion to consolidate the two actions 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

In its prior order denying, without prejudice, Ochoa’s prior motion to consolidate, the Court stated that any party bringing a motion to consolidate “must strictly comply with all substantive and procedural requirements, including, but not limited to, those set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 3.350.”  (Minute Order dated January 26, 2024, at p. 3.)  Ochoa has not done so.  The notice of motion does not comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.350 (a)(1)(A), (A)(1)(B), or (A)(1)(C).  The motion does not comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.350 (a)(2)(B).

In addition, and independently, in its prior order denying, without prejudice, Ochoa’s prior motion to consolidate, the Court ordered that prior to filing any motion to consolidate, “counsel for the parties are directed to meet and confer.”  (Minute Order dated January 26, 2024, at p. 3.)  No evidence has been submitted that the moving party complied with the Court’s order to meet and confer prior to filing this renewed motion.

Therefore, the Court DENIES without prejudice the motion to consolidate 23STCV00424 and 23STCV00355.

If Ochoa refiles, counsel should brief the significance of Code of Civil Procedure section 116.390, subdivision (c), which states that where a small claims action is transferred prior to judgment, "both actions shall be tried together in the transferee court." 
 

Conclusion

The Court DENIES, without prejudice, the motion to consolidate.

Moving Party to give notice.