Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV03841, Date: 2024-10-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV03841    Hearing Date: October 24, 2024    Dept: 29

Squire v. Trinhmartines
23STCV03841
Defendant’s Motion to Consolidate

Tentative

Motion is denied without prejudice.

Background

These two related cases arise out of a motor vehicle accident on March 12, 2021.

In this matter, the first filed case (Case No. 23STCV03841), on February 22, 2023, Plaintiff Darius Squire (“Squire”) filed a complaint asserting causes of action for negligence and negligence per se against Xinxin Trinhmartines, Eric Anthony Leandro, David McCauley, Juan Manual Resendiz, JB Wholesale Roofing, Richard Wayne Welch, Steve Michael Needleman, Reme Armando Soto Alverez, Jacob Michael McCauley, and Martin Delgado, and Does 1 through 20 (the “Squire Action”).

On August 1, 2023, Defendant Trinhmartinez filed an answer.

On August 10, 2023, Defendants David McCauley, Eric Leandro, and Jacob McCauley filed an answer.

On April 23, 2024, Defendants Alverez, Resendiz, Needleman, Delgado, JB Wholesale Roofing, and Welch were dismissed.

In the related, second filed case (Case No. 23VECV01021), on March 7, 2023, Juan Resendiz and Rene Soto (collectively, the “Resendiz Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint asserting causes of action for general negligence and motor vehicle negligence against Xinxin Trihnmartinez, Eric Anthony Leandro, and Does 1 through 50 (the “Resendiz Action”).

On August 1, 2023, Defendant Trinhmartinez filed an answer.

On August 14, 2023, Defendant Leandro filed an answer.

In the Squire Action, Defendant Xin Xin Trinh-Martinez (“Defendant”) filed a motion to consolidate this action and the Resendiz Action.  The motion was denied, as the two cases had not been related and were pending in different departments.

On March 8, 2024, Defendant filed a second motion to consolidate the two cases.  The motion was again denied, as the two cases had not been related and were pending in different departments.

On May 2, 2024, the Court related the two cases.  Both cases were assigned to the same department (initially Department 30, and now Department 29).

On September 30, 2024, Defendant filed this third motion to consolidate the Squire Action and the Resendiz Action. 

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

Defendant files this motion to consolidate this action (the Squire Action) with the Resendiz Action.  Defendant states that the two actions arise out of the same automobile accident on March 12, 2021.

Defendant has not, however, satisfied the procedural requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a)(1)(C).  No notice of motion was filed in the Resendiz Action.  Accordingly, the Court must deny the motion.  The denial is on procedural grounds and therefore is without prejudice.

Conclusion

The Court DENIES, without prejudice, the motion to consolidate the Squire Action (Case No. 23STCV03841) and the Resendiz Action (Case No. 23EVCV01021).

Moving Party to give notice.