Judge: Theodore R. Howard, Case: 21-1190072, Date: 2022-08-18 Tentative Ruling

The Motion to Consolidate Actions filed by Douglas R. Woods and April Yoakum (“Moving Party”) is DENIED.

Moving Party seeks a consolidation of this case, Case No. 2021-01190072, with Case No. 2019-01089240 and Case No. 2020-01168214.

The Court notes that Moving Party filed a motion to consolidate the exact same three cases before Judge Slaughter, which was denied on August 5, 2021. (See ROA 106 in Case No. 30-2019-01089240.) The Court sees no reason to disturb the prior order. Even if a prior motion had not been filed and denied, the motion fails on the merits and is procedurally defective.

“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).)

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. (Todd-Stenberg v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 976, 978–79.)

After considering the record before it and the factors relevant to consolidation, the Court finds that consolidation is not warranted in this matter.

Furthermore, Moving Party failed to comply with the procedural requirements of CRC, Rule 3.350 because the motion was not filed in each case sought to be consolidated as required by CRC, Rule 3.350(a)(1).

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.

Counsel for Plaintiff to give notice.