Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 20STCV41794, Date: 2022-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV41794    Hearing Date: December 6, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR C SOURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On November 2, 2020, plaintiff Deeanna Linsmaier (“Linsmaier”) filed this action (“Linsmaier I”) against defendant Wail Bushara (“Defendant”) arising from a car accident that occurred on November 4, 2018.  Linsmaier was a passenger in Bushara’s car at the time of the accident. 

On November 3, 2020, Linsamier filed an action (“Linsmaier II”) against Matthew Muldoon (“Muldoon”) and Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company (“Esurance”, erroneously sued as “Esurance Insurance Service”) arising from the same accident.  Muldoon allegedly drove the vehicle that struck the vehicle in which Linsmaier was a passenger.  On September 24, 2021, Linsmaier filed the operative first amended complaint naming Muldoon’s estate as the defendant, dismissing Esurance, and adding Bushara as a defendant.  On May 4, 2022, Linsmaier, Muldoon, and Esurance stipulated to strike Plaintiff’s claims for punitive damages and to limit Plaintiff’s recovery to the coverage provided by Muldoon’s automobile insurance policy pursuant to Probate Code section 550, et seq. 

On September 20, 2022, Bushara filed this motion to consolidate cases and continue trial in Linsmaier I.  On November 18, 2022, Muldoon’s Estate and Esurance filed an opposition brief in Linsmaier II.  On November 28, 2022, Bushara filed a reply brief in Linsmaier I. 

Bushara seeks an order consolidating Linsmaier I with Linsmaier II because the two actions arise out of the same automobile accident.  Muldoon’s estate and Esurance (collectively, the “Muldoon Defendants”) oppose the motion on the grounds that they have reached a settlement with Linsmaier and there is a pending application for determination of good faith settlement.  The Muldoon Defendants also argue that consolidation would be unfairly prejudicial because Linsmaier I has a trial date of January 19, 2023, and they have not yet conducted discovery.  In the alternatively, the Muldoon Defendants request a trial continuance of at least 12 months if the Court is inclined to consolidate the two actions. 

It is undisputed that Linsmaier I and Linsmaier II involve the same car accident and will require the same determinations of fact.  Even if the pending application for determination of good faith settlement were granted, it would not obviate the need for consolidation because there would still be two actions arising from the same accident and Linsmaier and Bushara remain parties to Linsmaier II.  Any potential prejudice Muldoon faces from consolidation can be alleviated by a trial continuance, which Bushara concurrently moves for. 

Accordingly, the motion to consolidate is GRANTED.

The trial dates in Linsmaier I and Linsmaier II are advanced to today’s date and continued to May 11, 2023, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 27 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The FSC dates in both actions are advanced to today’s date and continued to April 27, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. in Department 27 of the Spring Street Courthouse. 

Linsmaier I is the lead case.  All future papers must be filed in Linsmaier I.  All future hearing dates must be reserved in Linsmaier I.  All future hearing dates currently pending in Linsmaier II are vacated. 

Bushara, as the moving party, is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.