Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV18264, Date: 2024-08-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV18264    Hearing Date: August 21, 2024    Dept: 29

Salas v. Chavez
23STCV18264
Motion to Consolidate

Tentative

The motion is granted.

Background

These three related cases arise out of a vehicle accident on May 1, 2022, on Manchester near San Pedro, in Los Angeles, California.

In this matter (Case No. 23STCV18264, the “Salas Action”), on August 2, 2023, Plaintiffs Ramon Salas, Maria Salas, and Kyle Salas (collectively “Salas Plaintiffs”) filed the complaint asserting causes of action for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence against Defendants Cesar Machado Chavez, Maria Chavez Gonzalez, Boris Benjamin Navarro (“Navarro”), Gilmer Figueroa Agustin, and Does 1 through 25.

On August 30, 2023, Plaintiff Cesar Chavez filed a complaint (Case No. 23STCV20937, the “Chavez Action”), against Gilmer Figueroa, Navarro, and Does 1 through 25 for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence.

On April 26, 2024, Navarro filed a complaint (Case No. 24STCV10547, the “Navarro Action”) against Cesar Machado Chavez and Does 1 through 30 for general negligence and motor vehicle negligence.

On June 10, 2024, the three cases were related.

On July 24, 2024, Navarro filed this motion to consolidate the three cases for all purposes. No opposition has been filed.

Notice of this motion was filed in 23STCV20937 and 24STCV10547 on July 30, 2024.

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

Navarro requests an order consolidating Case No. 23STCV18264, Case No. 23STCV20937, and Case No. 24STCV10547 for all purposes. Navarro contends the three actions involve the automobile accident on May 1, 2022. These actions have been deemed related on June 10, 2024.

The Court finds the procedural requirements of the motion have been met. Turning to the merits, the Court has reviewed the evidence and the court files in all three cases and finds that consolidation would prevent repetitive depositions and discovery in relation to the single accident, would conserve judicial resources, would promote efficiency, and would avoid costs.  Good cause for consolidation has been shown.

Therefore, the Court GRANTS the motion to consolidate.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the motion to consolidate for all purposes Ramon Salas, et al. vs. Cesar Machado Chavez (Case No. 23STCV18264), Cesar Chavez vs. Gilmer Figueroa, et al. (Case No. 23STCV20937), and Boris Navarro vs. Cesar Machado Chavez (Case No. 24STCV10547).

All future filing are to be made under Case No. 23STCV18264, which is designated as the lead case.

Moving Party to give notice.