Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV22874, Date: 2025-02-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV22874    Hearing Date: February 20, 2025    Dept: 29

Ramirez v. Hernandez
23STCV22874
Defendant’s Motion to Consolidate Cases

Tentative

The motion is denied without prejudice.

Background

These two cases arise out of a vehicle accident on September 24, 2021 on Florence Avenue in Los Angeles.

In this case (Case No. 23STCV22874), Maria Victoria Ramirez filed a complaint on September 21, 2023, against Mario Hernandez (“Hernandez”), Marvin Alfredo Lopez Montes (“Montes”), and Does 1 through 25 for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence.

On October 21, 2024, Montes filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Hernandez, Dejon M. Dickens (“Dickens”), and Roes 1 through 25.

On December 2, 2024, Hernandez filed an answer to the complaint and a cross-complaint against Dickens and Roes 1 through 25.

In the other case (Case No. 23STLC05685), Dickens and Tranisha Dena Hart filed a complaint on September 5, 2023, against Hernandez and Does 1 through 20 for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence.

On December 2, 2024, Hernandez filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Dickens and Roes 1 through 25.

On December 19, 2024, the two cases were related.

On January 23, 2025, Defendant Hernandez filed this motion to consolidate.

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 (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

Defendant Hernandez moves to consolidate Case Nos. 23STCV22874 and 23STLC05685.

The Court denies the motion without prejudice, as Defendant has not met the procedural requirements for the motion.

First, it does not appear that the entire motion was filed.  In Case No. 23STCV22874, there is a notice of motion and motion, but there is no supporting memorandum or supporting evidence (notwithstanding the information on the caption page), as required.

Second, the notice of motion also does not list the respective attorneys of record for each party, as required.

Third, the notice of motion was not filed in Case No. 23STLC05685, as required.

Accordingly, the motion is denied without prejudice.

Conclusion

The Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the motion to consolidate Case Nos. 23STCV22874 and 23STLC05685.

Moving Party to give notice.