Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV22249, Date: 2025-03-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV22249    Hearing Date: March 25, 2025    Dept: 29

Gefen Equities, LLC v. Silva
23STCV22249
Motion to Consolidate

Tentative

Motion is denied without prejudice.

Background

Four related cases arise out of an automobile accident on October 4, 2021, on Washington Boulevard in Commerce.  (Two other related cases, Case Nos. 23STCV29876 and 24STCV23977, have been dismissed.)

In the first case (Case No. 23STCV22249), on September 14, 2023, Gefen Equities, LLC  (“Gefen”) filed a complaint against Martin Efrain Ornelas Silva (“Silva”), Aguirre Transportation, Inc. (“ATI”), Aguirre Transportation, LLC, and Does 1 through 15 (the “Gefen Action”).

On September 15, 2023, Gefen filed a First Amended Complaint.

On October 18, 2024, Silva filed an answer.

On February 26, 2025, intervenor Qualitas Insurance Company (“Qualitas”) filed an answer in intervention on behalf of ATI, a suspended corporation.

In the second case (Case No. 23STCV23610), on September 28, 2023, Jorge A Arias Lopez (“Jorge Lopez”), Ana Vilma Garcia (“Garcia”), Anthony David Alvarez (“Alvarez”), and Diego Eduardo Lopez (“Diego Lopez”) filed a complaint against ATI, Silva, Miguel Aguirre, and Does 1 through 25 (the “Lopez Action”).

On October 4, 2024, Miguel Aguirre filed an answer.

In the third case (Case No. 24STCV23961), on September 17, 2024, Brouhaha, Inc. filed a complaint against ATI, Silva, Miguel Aguirre, and Does 1 through 100 (the “Brouhaha Action”).

On October 18, 2024, Miguel Aguirre filed an answer.

On November 26, 2024, intervenor Qualitas filed a complaint in intervention on behalf of ATI.

In the fourth case (Case No. 24STCV24327), on September 19, 2024, California Fair Plan (“CFP”) filed a complaint against Silva, ATI, and Does 1 through 20 (the “CFP Action”).

On October 15, 2024, CFP amended the complaint to name Miguel Aguirre as Doe 1.

On November 22, 2024, intervenor Qualitas filed a complaint in intervention.

On December 11, 2024, Miguel Aguirre filed an answer.

On February 11, 2025, CFP filed a request to dismiss Silva.

On February 19, 2025, the cases were related.

On February 26, 2025, Silva and Qualitas filed this motion to consolidate.  Gefen filed an opposition on March 12, and moving parties filed a reply on March 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.)

California Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a), sets forth 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

Silva and Qualitas request an order consolidating the Gefen Action, the Lopez Action, the Brouhaha Action, and the CFP Action.

Silva and Qualitas have not met the procedural requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.350, by filing notice of motion in each action sought to be consolidated.

Accordingly, the motion is denied without prejudice.       

Conclusion

The Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the motion to consolidate Case Nos. 23STCV22249, 23STCV23610, 24STCV23961, and 24STCV24327.

Moving Party to give notice.