Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV04278, Date: 2024-06-14 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV04278 Hearing Date: June 14, 2024 Dept: 29
Motion to Consolidate
Motion to Continue Trial
TENTATIVE
Defendant’s motion to consolidate is denied.
Defendant’s motion to continue is denied.
Background
In Case No. 23STCV04278 (the “DeSilveira
Case”), Plaintiffs Manuel and Gorette DeSilveira filed a complaint on February
27, 2023, against Defendants Mariscos Bahia, Inc., Rene Miguel Carillo, and
Does 1 through 50 for injuries arising from a motor vehicle accident on February
24, 2022, in Stanislaus County. On April
13, 2023, Defendants Mariscos Bahia, Inc., and Rene Miguel Carillo filed an
answer to the complaint.
On September 29, 2023, Plaintiffs amended
their complaint to name Mariscos Bahia (Phoenix), Inc., as Does 6 and 16. On December 13, 2023, Defendant Mariscos
Bahia (Phoenix), Inc., filed its answer to the complaint.
On January 29, 2024, the Court, at the
request of Plaintiffs, dismissed all causes of action asserted on behalf of
Plaintiff Gorette DeSilveira. Plaintiff
Manuel DeSilveira (“Plaintiff”) continues to prosecute his causes of action in
this case.
On April 24, 2024, the Court granted the
motion of Modesto Irrigation District to intervene in the DeSilveira Case. The next day, Modesto Irrigation District
filed its Complaint-in-Intervention.
In Case No. 24STCV03147 (the “Bledsoe Case”),
Plaintiffs Paul Bledsoe, Courtney Smith, and Leonard Mitchell filed a complaint
on February 7, 2024, against Defendants Mariscos Bahia, Inc., Mariscos Bahia
(Phoenix), Inc., Rene Miguel Carillo, and Does 1 through 50 for injuries
arising from a motor vehicle accident on February 24, 2022, in Stanislaus County. On March 22, April 8, and April 24, 2024,
each of the named Defendants filed an answer to the complaint.
On April 2, 2024, Plaintiffs in the Bledsoe
Case filed a Notice of Related Case in the DeSilveira Case and the Bledsoe Case,
identifying these two cases plus a third case, filed on February 21, 2024, in
Stanislaus County Superior Court (Branson v. Mariscos Bahia, Inc., Case
No. CV-24-001362) as related cases.
On April 11, 2024, the Court, per the Hon.
Lynne M. Hobbs, issued an order finding that the DeSilveira Case and the Bledsoe
Case are related. The Bledsoe Case was
reassigned to Department 30 of the Spring Street Courthouse.
On April 23, 2024, the Court, per the Hon.
Lynne M. Hobbs, issued a new order, apparently reconsidering the order of April
11 on its own motion, and made a new finding that the DeSilveira Case and the
Bledsoe Case are not related.
On May 13, 2024, Department 30 of the
Spring Street Courthouse was closed. The
DeSilveira Case and the Bledsoe Case were reassigned to Department 29 of the
Spring Street Courthouse.
Two motions are currently before the Court.
First, on May 17, 2024, Defendant Mariscos
Bahia, Inc. (“Defendant”) moved to consolidate this case with the Bledsoe Case.
On May 21, Plaintiff filed an opposition.
Mariscos Bahia (Phoenix), Inc. and Modesto Irrigation District filed
joinders in Defendant’s motion.
Defendant filed a reply on June 7.
Second, also on May 17, 2024, Mariscos moved
to continue the trial date, and all discovery deadlines, in the DeSilveira
Case. On May 21, Plaintiff filed an
opposition. Mariscos Bahia (Phoenix),
Inc. and Modesto Irrigation District filed joinders in Defendant’s motion. No reply was filed.
On June 5, 2024, Defendant filed a new
Notice of Related Case.
Legal Standard
Motion to Consolidate
“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 purpose of consolidation is to
enhance trial court efficiency by avoiding unnecessary duplication of evidence
and the danger of inconsistent adjudications. (See Todd-Stenberg v. Dalkon Shield
Claimants Trust (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 976, 978-979.)
There are two types of consolidation: a complete
consolidation for all purposes, and a more limited consolidation for trial or
certain other specific purposes (such as pre-trial discovery). (Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (2000) 22 Cal.4th
1127, 1147; Sanchez v.
Super. Ct. (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 1391, 1396;
see also 3 Weil & Brown, California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before
Trial (2023), ¶¶ 12:340-341.3.) When
cases are consolidated for all purposes, “the two actions are merged into a
single proceeding under one case number and result in only one verdict or set
of findings and one judgment.” (Hamilton,
supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 1147; see also Sanchez, supra, 203 Cal.App.3d at p. 1396.) In a
consolidation for limited purposes, “the two actions remain otherwise
separate.” (Hamilton,
supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 1147; see also Sanchez, supra, 203 Cal.App.3d at p. 1396.)
“Consolidation
under Code of Civil Procedure section 1048 is permissive, and it is for the
trial court to determine whether the consolidation is for all purposes or for
trial only.” (Hamilton, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 1149.)
There are
a number of special procedural requirements for a motion to consolidate. Such a motion must (among other things): “(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.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350, subd.
(a)(1).) The motion must be “served on
all attorneys of record and all nonrepresented parties in all of the cases
sought to be consolidated.” (Id.,
subd. (a)(2)(B).) And before the motion
is heard, the cases must all be related and in the same department. (Super. Ct. L.A. County, Local Rules, rule 3.3,
subd. (g)(1).)
Motion to
Continue Trial
Code of Civil Procedure section 128,
subdivision (a)(8), provides that the court has the power to amend and control
its process and orders so as to make them conform to law and justice. “The
power to determine when a continuance should be granted is within the
discretion of the trial court.” (Color-Vue, Inc. v. Abrams (1996) 44
Cal.App.4th 1599, 1603.) “A trial court has wide latitude in the matter of
calendar control including the granting or denying of continuances.” (Park
Motors, Inc. v. Cozens (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 12, 18.)
“To ensure the prompt disposition of
civil cases, the dates assigned for trial are firm. All parties and their counsel must regard the
date set for trial as certain.” (Cal. Rules
of Court, rule 3.1332(a).)
“Although continuances of trials are
disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own
merits.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule
3.1332(c).) “The court may grant a
continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the
continuance.” (Ibid.) Circumstances that may support a finding of
good cause include:
“(1) The unavailability of an essential lay or expert
witness because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;
(2) The unavailability of a party because of death,
illness, or other excusable circumstances;
(3) The unavailability of trial counsel because of death,
illness, or other excusable circumstances;
(4) The substitution of trial counsel, but only where
there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the
interests of justice;
(5) The addition of a new party if: (A) The new party has
not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial; or
(B) The other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct
discovery and prepare for trial in regard to the new party's involvement in the
case;
(6) A party's excused inability to obtain essential
testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts;
or
(7) A significant, unanticipated change in the status of
the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial.”
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule
3.1332(c).)
“In ruling on a motion or application
for continuance, the court must consider all the facts and circumstances that
are relevant to the determination.” (Cal.
Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d).) California
Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d) sets forth a non-exhaustive list of factors that
the court may consider:
“(1) The proximity of the trial date;
(2) Whether there was any previous continuance, extension
of time, or delay of trial due to any party;
(3) The length of the continuance requested;
(4) The availability of alternative means to address the
problem that gave rise to the motion or application for a continuance;
(5) The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer
as a result of the continuance;
(6) If the case is entitled to a preferential trial
setting, the reasons for that status and whether the need for a continuance
outweighs the need to avoid delay;
(7) The court's calendar and the impact of granting a
continuance on other pending trials;
(8) Whether trial counsel is engaged in another
trial;
(9) Whether all parties have stipulated to a
continuance;
(10) Whether the interests of justice are best served by
a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the
continuance; and
(11) Any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair
determination of the motion or application.”
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule
3.1332(d).)
Discussion
Motion to Consolidate
Defendant
moves to consolidate this case (the DeSilveira Case) and the Bledsoe Case.
Cases
must be related before they can be consolidated. (Local Rule 3.3(g).) The Court has ruled, by Minute Order dated
April 25, 2024, that the DeSilveira Case and the Bledsoe Case are not related. Accordingly, the motion to consolidate is
denied.
If
any party contends that the Court erred in not relating the cases, the party
may file a motion to have the cases related.
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.300(h)(1)(D).)
Motion to Continue Trial
Defendant’s motion to continue trial is
based entirely on the contention that the DeSilveira Case and the Bledsoe Case
should be consolidated, along with the third case pending in Stanislaus County
(as to which, Defendant reports, a motion to change venue is set for hearing on
June 18). (Ahdoot Decl., ¶¶ 4-8.)
As the Court is denying the motion to
consolidate, and no other good cause is offered for the trial continuance, the
motion to continue trial is denied.
Conclusion
The Court DENIES the motion to consolidate.
The Court DENIED the motion to continue
trial.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.