Judge: Theodore R. Howard, Case: 20-1126781, Date: 2022-09-08 Tentative Ruling

The unopposed Motion to Consolidate Case No. 2020-01126781 with Case No. 2021-01222051 filed by Plaintiff B & B General Construction Services, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) is GRANTED.

When there are actions involving common questions of law or fact pending, a court may order a joint trial of any or all of the matters in issue in the actions or may order all the actions consolidated, or such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048(a).)  In Sanchez v. Superior Court (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 1391, 1396 (citation omitted), the appellate court described the types of case consolidation:

“There are two types of consolidation: a complete consolidation resulting in a single action, and a consolidation of separate actions for trial. Under the former procedure, which may be utilized where the parties are identical and the causes could have been joined, the pleadings are regarded as merged, one set of findings is made, and one judgment is rendered. In a consolidation for trial, the pleadings, verdicts, findings and judgments are kept separate; the actions are simply tried together for the sake of convenience and judicial economy.”

Each case presents its own facts and circumstances, but the court will usually consider the following: (1) timeliness of the motion: i.e., whether granting consolidation would delay the trial of any of the cases involved, or whether discovery in one or more of the cases has proceeded without all parties present; (2) complexity: i.e., whether joining the actions involved would make the trial too confusing or complex for a jury; and (3) prejudice: i.e., whether consolidation would adversely affect the rights of any party. (Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Proc. Before Trial, 12:362.) The granting or denial of the motion to consolidate rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, and will not be reversed except upon a clear showing of abuse of discretion.  (Fellner v. Steinbaum (1955) 132 Cal.App.2d 509, 511.)

The court has considered the record before it and the factors relevant to consolidation and has concluded that consolidation of these matters for purposes of trial is warranted. 

Accordingly, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate.

Moving Party to provide notice.