Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV09010, Date: 2024-10-02 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV09010 Hearing Date: October 2, 2024 Dept: 29
Axelrod v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority
23STCV09010
Motion to Consolidate
Tentative
Motion is denied without prejudice.
Background
Moving
party seeks to consolidate three related cases that arise from the same accident
in which a bus collided with another vehicle on September 7, 2022.
In
this matter, the first filed action (Case No. 23STCV09010) Plaintiff Jack
Axelrod (“Axelrod”) filed a complaint on April 24, 2023, against Defendant Los
Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Metro”) and Does 1 through
25 (the “Axelrod Action”).
On
August 16, 2023, Metro filed an answer.
On
July 25, 2024, Axelrod amended the complaint to name Susana Covian (“Covian”)
as Doe 1.
On
September 4, 2024, Covian filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Metro
and Roes 1 through 10.
In
the second filed action (Case No. 23STCV12815) Azucena Rojas and Efrain Mercado
(collectively, the “Rojas Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint on June 6, 2023, against
Covian, Metro, and Does 1 through 50 (the “Rojas Action”).
On
October 26, 2023, Covian filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Metro
and Roes 1 through 10.
On
November 7, 2023, Metro filed an answer to the complaint. On January 16, 2024, filed an answer to
Covian’s cross-complaint.
In
the third filed action (Case No. 23STCV13913), Ana Belen Garcia (“Garcia”)
filed a complaint on June 15, 2023, against Metro, Doe Driver, and Does 1
through 100 (the “Garcia Action”).
On
May 2, 2024, Metro filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Roes 1 through
20.
As
is relevant here, Metro filed a notice of related cases on July 29, 2024. The Court, by minute order dated August 19,
2024, determined that the three cases are related.
On September 6, 2024, Metro filed this motion to
consolidate the three cases 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,
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 (2024), ¶¶ 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.)
The trial court should not consolidate actions
where prejudice would result to any party. (See State Farm
Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1956) 47 Cal.2d 428, 430.)
California Rules of Court, rule 3.350,
establishes a number of procedural requirements for a motion to consolidate:
“(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
Metro seeks an order consolidating for all
purposes the Axelrod Action, the Rojas Action, and the Garcia Action.
California Rules of Court, rule 3.350 sets forth
a number of strict procedural requirements for a motion to
consolidate. Those requirements are not satisfied here.
Rule 3.350, subdivision (a)(1)(C) requires that
the notice of motion “must … [b]e filed in each case sought to be
consolidated.” No notice of motion was filed in the Rojas Action or
the Garcia 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 without prejudice the
motion to consolidate for all purposes the Axelrod Action, the Rojas Action, and the Garcia
Action.