Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 21STCV19391, Date: 2022-12-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV19391    Hearing Date: December 21, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Pedram Panahi seeks to consolidate this action (the “Mendez Action”) with the case captioned Pedram Panahi v. Hannah McCormack, et al., LASC Case No. 21STCV33857 (the “McCormack Action”).  The Mendez Action involves a motor vehicle collision that occurred four months before the motor vehicle collision underlying the McCormack Action. 

“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.) 

The motion for consolidation is procedurally deficient.  First, there is no court order deeming the cases related into the same department.  “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).)

On September 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed a notice of related case in each action.  On September 22, 2022, the Court deemed the matters not related.  On December 15, 2022, Plaintiff filed an amended notice of related case, adding an attachment with an explanation for why he believes the cases should be related.  Plaintiff contends that the cases are related because they involve the same plaintiff and overlapping physical complaints and medical treatment.  Plaintiff states he has had multiple surgeries including an artificial disc replacement of the cervical spine and a fusion in the lumbar spine.  No order has been issued to relate the two cases. 

But even if there was a court order deeming the matters related, the motion is procedurally deficient for a second reason.  A Notice of Motion to consolidate cases must be filed in each case sought to be consolidated.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a)(1).)  Even though the parties in the McCormack Action were served with notice of this motion, no Notice of Motion to consolidate was filed in the McCormack Action for the Court’s records. 

Third, Plaintiff’s moving papers are conclusory and do not present an adequate explanation for consolidation.  Plaintiff only states that the actions at issue present “essentially the same or overlapping issues” without explaining what those issues are.  Plaintiff states that these two actions will involve an apportionment of damages across the defendants in both cases without providing any evidence or explanation.  Further, Plaintiff’s new arguments on reply are not well-taken because Defendant has not had an opportunity to respond to these arguments, which could have (and should have) been raised in Plaintiff’s moving papers. 

Accordingly, the Motion to consolidate is DENIED without prejudice.

Moving party 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.