Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV12815, Date: 2024-11-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV12815    Hearing Date: November 13, 2024    Dept: 29

Rojas v. Covian
23STCV12815
Motion to Consolidate

Tentative

The motion is granted.

Background

These three related cases arise out of a bus accident on September 7, 2022.

In the first filed action, Case No. 23STCV09010, on April 24, 2023, Plaintiff Jack Axelrod (“Axelrod”) filed a complaint asserting causes of action for negligence and statutory liability 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 Does 1 through 10.

In this action, the second filed action, Case No. 23STCV12815, on June 6, 2023, Azucena Rojas and Efrain Mercado (the “Rojas Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Covian, Metro, and Does 1 through 50, asserting causes of action for negligence, negligence, negligent hiring, training , supervision, and retention, and strict liability under Civil Code sections 2100, et seq. (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, Metro filed an answer to the cross-complaint.

In the third filed action, Case No. 23STCV13913, on June 15, 2023, Ana Belen Garcia (“Garcia”) filed a complaint against Metro, Doe Driver, and Does 1 through 100, asserting causes of action for negligence, vicarious liability, Vehicle Code section 17001, negligence, and vicarious liability (the “Garcia Action”).

On May 2, 2024, Metro filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Roes 1 through 20.

On November 4, 2024, a notice of settlement was filed in the Garcia Action.

As is relevant here, on August 19, 2024, the Court determined that these three actions are related, and all were assigned to Department 29.

On October 8, 2024, LACMTA filed the motion to consolidate. Notice of the motion was filed in all three related matters on October 8. No opposition has been filed.

This matter was initially set for hearing on November 4.  The Court, on its own motion, continued the hearing to November 13.  (The Court also continued the hearing in the Axelrod Action to November 18.)

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.)

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 assigned to the same department.  (Super. Ct. L.A. County, Local Rules, rule 3.3, subd. (g)(1) [“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.”].)

Discussion

Metro requests an order consolidating for all purposes Case Nos. 23STCV09010, 23STCV12815, and 23STCV13913.

Metro has satisfied all of the procedural requirements for this motion.  Metro has also shown that there is good cause for the consolidation: all three actions arise out of the same accident, there are common issues of law and fact in the three cases as well as common parties, and consolidation would promote judicial efficiency as to discovery and motions and preserve resources.

Accordingly, Metro’s motion to consolidate is granted.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Metro’s motion to consolidate.

The Court ORDERS that Case Nos. 23STCV09010, 23STCV12815, and 23STCV13913 are consolidated for all purposes.  The lead case is Case No. 23STCV09010.  All future filings are to made in the lead case.

The Court PLACES OFF CALENDAR as moot the motion to consolidate these actions that is set for hearing on November 18, 2024, in Case No. 23STCV09010.

Moving Party to give notice.