Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV27995, Date: 2025-04-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV27995    Hearing Date: April 17, 2025    Dept: 29

Tyson v. Crown Tear Off & Disposal, Inc.
23STCV27995
Motion to Consolidate

Tentative

The motion is denied without prejudice on procedural grounds.

Background

At issue in this motion are two separate cases.

The Tyson Action

In Case No. 23STCV27995, the first-filed case, on November 15, 2023,  Ny’ila Gloria Garcia Tyson (a minor by and through her guardian ad litem), and Ry’Len Alexander Garcia Tyson (a minor by and through his guardian ad litem) filed a complaint against Crown Tear Off & Disposal, Inc. (“Crown”), Premiere Roofing Supply LLC (“Premiere”), Chries Mok Knepper (“Knepper”), Gyum S. Mok (“Mok”), and Does 1 through 50 for (1) negligence – wrongful death, (2) negligent hiring, supervision, & retention – wrongful death, (3) premises liability – wrongful death, (4) negligence – survival action, (5) premises liability – survival action, and (6) negligent hiring, supervision, & retention – survival action, all arising out of the death of Randy Tyson in a shooting on June 12, 2022, at a party on property located on 1465 South Lorena Street in Los Angeles.  The Court refers to this case as the “Tyson Action.”

On June 7, 2024, a First Amended Complaint (the “FAC”) was filed, identifying as an additional plaintiff The Estate of Randy Tyson (by and through its personal representative) and asserting causes of action for general negligence, premises liability, wrongful death, and survival action. (Ny’ila Gloria Garcia Tyson, Ry’Len Alexander Garcia Tyson, and The Estate of Randy Tyson are referred to collectively as the “Tyson Plaintiffs.”)

On July 18, 2024, Knepper and Mok filed an answer to the FAC,

On the same day, July 18, 2024, Premiere filed an answer to the FAC.

On July 24, 2024, Crown filed an answer to the FAC.

On April 8, 2025, the Tyson Plaintiffs named Fiona Star, LLC as Doe 1, Fiona Star Limited as Doe 2, and Joshua Dunbar as Doe 3.

On April 15, 2025, the Tyson Plaintiffs named Universal Protection Service, LP dba Allied Universal Security Services as Doe 4.

On filing, the Tyson Action was assigned to Department 32 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  Upon the closing of Department 32, the Tyson Action was reassigned to Department 29 on December 9, 2024.

The Anguiano Action

In Case No. 23STCV31638, the second-filed case, on December 26, 2023, James Santiago Anguiano, Jr. (by and through his successor-in-interest), Maria Anguiano, and Raylene Anguiano (a minor by and through her guardian ad litem) (collectively, the “Anguiano Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Edith Chin Trust, Sequoia Trust, Edith Chin (subsequently dismissed), and Does 1 through 50,  for negligence and premises liability arising out of the death of James Santiago Anguiano, Jr. on June 12, 2022, on property located on 1459 South Lorena Street in Los Angeles.  The Court refers to this case as the “Anguiano Action.”

On May 16, 2024, the Anguiano Plaintiffs named Mok as Doe 1 and Crown as Doe 2.

On May 17, 2024, the Anguiano Plaintiffs named Allied Universal Security as Doe 3 and David Nakamura (“Nakamura”) as Doe 4.

On June 20, 2024, Universal Protection Service LP dba Allied Universal Security Services (erroneously sued as Allied Universal Security) (“Universal”) filed an answer.

On June 27, 2024, Nakamura filed an answer.

On July 1, 2024, Crown and Mok filed an answer.

On October 23, 2024, the Anguiano Plaintiffs named Premiere as Doe 5.

On January 10, 2025, Premiere filed an answer.

On filing, the Anguiano Action was assigned to Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  Upon the closing of Department 31, the Anguiano Action was reassigned to Department 32 on June 24, 2024.  Upon the closing of Department 32, the Anguiano Action was reassigned to Department 29 on December 9, 2024.

Relation and Consolidation

On July 31, 2024, Crown, Premiere, Knepper, and Mok filed a notice stating that the Tyson Action and the Anguiano Action are related.

On August 20, 2024, the Court (Hwang, J.) ruled that the two cases are not related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300.

On March 24, 2025, Premiere, Knepper, and Mok (collectively “Moving Defendants”) filed this motion to consolidate the Tyson Action and the Anguiano Action.  Crown, Knepper, and Mok filed a notice of joinder. On April 7, 2025, Tyson Plaintiffs filed an opposition. Moving Defendants filed a reply on April 10, 2025.

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.”

Los Angeles County Superior Court Rule 3.3, subdivision (g)(1), provides:

“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.” 

Discussion

Moving Defendants seek an order consolidating the Tyson Action and the Anguiano Action.

Moving Defendants have not, however, satisfied all of the procedural requirements for a motion to consolidate.  Moving Defendants have not filed the notice of motion in both actions, as is required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a)(1)(C).

Accordingly, the motion is denied without prejudice on procedural grounds.  

Conclusion

The Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the motion to consolidate Case Nos. 23STCV27995 and 23STCV31648.

Moving Party to give notice.