Source: https://trellis.law/ca/motion-type/motion-to-consolidate-join-cases-88
Timestamp: 2020-02-20 10:56:18
Document Index: 647093515

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1048', '§1048', '§ 1048', '§ 1048', '§ 452', '§ 430', '§ 430', '§ 1048', '§ 1048', 'CASE NO: 19', '§1281', '§ 1048', '§1048']

What is a Motion to Consolidate/Join Cases?
Motion To Consolidate/Join Cases
Code of Civil Procedure, section 1048(a) grants discretion to the trial courts to consolidate actions involving common questions of law or fact and are pending in the same court. Code of Civ. Proc., § 1048(a). The purpose is to enhance trial court efficiency (i.e., to avoid unnecessary duplication of evidence and procedures); and to avoid the substantial danger of inconsistent adjudications (i.e., different results because tried before different juries, or a judge and jury, etc.). See Todd-Stenberg v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 976, 978–979.
There are two types of consolidation under Section 1048:
a consolidation for purposes of trial only, where the two actions remain otherwise separate, and
a complete consolidation or consolidation for all purposes, where 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 v. Asbestos Corp. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1127, 1147.
The granting or denial of a motion to consolidate rests in the trial court's sound discretion, and will not be reversed except upon a clear showing of abuse of discretion. Feliner v. Steinbaum (1955) 132 Cal.App.2d 509, 511; Nat’l Elec. Supply Co. v. Mt. Diablo Unified Sch. Dist. (1960) 187 Cal. App. 2d 418, 421. “[I]t is possible that actions may be thoroughly ‘related’ in the sense of having common questions of law or fact, and still not be ‘consolidated,’ if the trial court, in the sound exercise of its discretion, chooses not to do so.” Askew v. Askew (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 942, 964.
In deciding whether to grant a motion to consolidate, the court should weigh whether the common issues predominate over the individual issues and whether any risks of jury confusion or prejudice to the parties outweighs the reduction in time and expense that would result from consolidation. Todd-Stenberg v. Shield (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 976, 978.
California Rules of Court sets forth special rules which apply to motions seeking consolidation. A notice of motion to consolidate must:
List all named parties in each case, the names of those who have appeared, and the names of their respective attorneys of record;
Contain the captions of all the cases sought to be consolidated, with the lowest numbered case shown first; and
Be filed in each case sought to be consolidated.
Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.350(a)(1).
Additionally, a motion to consolidate:
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;
Must be served on all attorneys of record and all non-represented parties in all of the cases sought to be consolidated; and
Must have a proof of service filed as part of the motion.
Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.350(a)(2).
Most Useful Motion to Consolidate/Join Cases Examples
MOSHE OZERI VS. ROBERT BRESLER
...Plaintiff, v. robert bresler, Defendant. Case No.: EC067823 Hearing Date: March 16, 2018 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motion to consolidate BACKGROUND Plaintiff Moshe Ozeri (“Plaintiff”) moves to consolidate cases EC067823 and 17PDUD01290 (Bresler v. Ozeri). This instant action, case no. EC067823, is a quiet title action that was filed on December 29, 2017 in Department B. Case no. 17PDUD01290 involves an unlaw...
...(“UD Action”). The motion is not opposed. LEGAL STANDARD Motions to consolidate are permitted in “actions involving a common question of law or fact pending before the court.” (CCP §1048(a).) In such cases, the court “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 a...
HODAYA COHEN ET AL VS IGOR FAKTOROVICH ET AL
...Plaintiffs, vs. IGOR FAKTOROVICH, ET AL., Defendant. CASE NO: BC582941 [R/T Case No. BC623472] [TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE Defendants, Igor Faktorovich’s and Irina Faktorovich’s Motion to Consolidate is Granted. 1. BC582941 Plaintiffs Hodaya Cohen and Shiran Shlomo filed Case No. BC582941 against Defendants, Igor and Irina Faktorovich (“Faktorovichs”) for damages arising out of an ...
...(“Aronianpour”) and Michael Ouziel (“Ouziel”) filed Case No. BC623472 against the Faktorovichs for damages arising out of the same 8/3/14 automobile accident. Plaintiffs filed the complaint on 6/13/16. 4. Motion to Consolidate a. Law Governing Consolidation CCP § 1048 grants discretion to the trial courts to consolidate actions involving common questions of law or fact. Consolidation is a procedure for unit...
Robles vs Strache
Tentative Ruling on Motion to Consolidate Robles v. Strache, Case No. 2018-08066 (and Asistio v. Strache, 2017-17324) Sept. 14, 2018, 1:30 p.m., Dept. 72 1. Overview and Procedural Posture. This case arises out of a multi-ca...
...counsel revealed there is a related case (Asistio v. Strache, 2017-17324), and the court set a hearing on a motion to consolidate and also set the case for trial in March 2019. ROA 32. The consolidation motion was filed in the low numbered case, Asistio. ROA 33. 2. Applicable Standards. A. Regarding consolidation, Code of Civil Procedure section 1048(a) provides: "When actions involving a common question ...
OMAR HERMENEGILDO VS CALIFORNIA POTTERY AND TILE WORKS INC E
...DISTRICT OMAR HERMENEGILDO, Plaintiff(s), vs. CALIFORNIA POTTERY AND TILE WORKS INC., JOHN RAYMOND MCLEAN, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive Defendant(s). CASE NO: BC652629 [TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE Dept. 3 1:30 p.m. August 15, 2019 1. Background Facts Plaintiff Omar Hermenegildo (“Father’s Action”) filed BC652629 against Defendants California Pottery and Tile Works Inc. and J...
...pending in Department 3 at this time. Both cases are scheduled for trial on 9/26/19. On 7/9/19, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Consolidate was heard before the Court. On the Court’s own motion, the hearing on the Motion to Consolidate was continued to 8/15/19. 2. Motion to Consolidate a. Law Governing Consolidation “When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order ...
JONG KIM VS VAREE INVESTMENT LLC, ET AL.
...emotional distress against Defendants Varee Investment, LLC and Thomas A. Vielma (“Defendants”). Plaintiff filed a Notice of Related Cases that was denied on June 5, 2019. Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Consolidate on July 10, 2019. To date, no opposition has been filed. Plaintiff moves to consolidate the instant action with Vielma v. Kim, LASC Case No. l9NWUD00552 (“the Vielma action”). Legal St...
...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 nu...
DAVID PETRUZZI VS JAVIER GARCIA ET AL
...Javier Garcia’s motion to consolidate Petruzzi v. Garcia et al. LASC Case No. BC658186 and Asad v. Garcia LASC Case No. 17K06062 is denied without prejudice. This motion to consolidate pertains to two cases Petruzzi v. Garcia et al. LASC Case No. BC658186 in Dept. 3 (the “Petruzzi Action”) and Asad v. Garcia LASC Case No. 17K06062 in Dept. 94 (the “Asad Action”). The complaints in both cases arise from a...
...cannot occur until “[a] motion to consolidate two or more cases [is] 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.” (See also CRC Rules 3.300, 3.350.) Under California Rules of Court Rule 3.350(a)(1), a notice of motion to consolidate must: (A) List all named parties in e...
Recent Examples of Motion to Consolidate/Join Cases
Robin Miller Sloan
DAVID SAFAR VS REMON BALGJIAN, ET AL.
Safar v. Remon Balgjian, et al. MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE (CCP § 1048) TENTATIVE RULING Defendant Novel Hakobyan’s Motion to Consolidate is GRANTED. THE INSTANT ACTION REMAINS THE LEAD CASE AND ALL FUTURE FILINGS ARE TO BE UNDER THE LEAD CASE NUMBER. ANALYSIS: Plaintiff David Safar (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant actio...
...of Related Case with respect to Balgjian v. Hakobyan, LASC Case No. 19STLC00770 (“Case No. 19STLC00770”). The Court deemed the cases related on November 25, 2019. Defendant Hakobyan filed the instant Motion to Consolidate on December 26, 2019. To date, no opposition has been filed. Legal Standard Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.350, subdivision (a) states in relevant part: (1) A notice of motion to consol...
ANA DIAZ, ET AL. VS FRANKIE CHU
Motion to Consolidate Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. BACKGROUND In 19STCV16195, on November 9, 2019, Plaintiff Mauricio Pineda filed a complaint agai...
...apportionment, and declaratory relief. In 19STCV17263, on January 10, 2020, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Frankie Chu filed a notice or related case. In 19STCV17263, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Frankie Chu filed a motion to consolidate case number 19STCV17263 with case number 19STCV16195 pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1048. In 19STCV16195, trial is set for November 5, 2020. In 19STCV17263, tr...
VERDULT VS. KING
1. Motion to Consolidate filed by Defendant Rita A King: Defendant Rita A. King motion for an order transferring Orange County Superior Court case Eva Verdult v. Rita Ann King and Does 1-25, Case No. 30-2019-01070964-CU-PT-CJC (“Civil Matter”) to Department C06, and completely consolida...
...the First Verified Supplement to Petition for Instructions re: Validity of Trust and Order Confirming Validity of Trust filed in the Probate Matter. Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections to exhibits to the Motion are OVERRULED. Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections to Declaration of Samantha J. Morris are OVERRULED. Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections to Declaration of Rita Ann King Nos. 3 and 7 are SUSTAINED and ...
HERNANDEZ V. CLARK PACIFIC CORP.
...(Evid. Code, § 452; Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30, subd. (a).) Defendant Clark Pacific Corporation’s demurrer or alternatively, motion to consolidate is OVERRULED as to the demurrer and GRANTED as to the motion to consolidate. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.10, subd. (e), 1048.) The lead case will be CV CV 19-644. A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack...
MICHAEL ANTHONY QUINONES VS BENJAMIN ALLEN AVERY
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE (CCP § 1048) TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant Benjamin Allen Avery’s Motion to Consolidate is GRANTED. The instant action remains the lead case and all future filings are to be under the lead case number. ANALYSIS: Background On March 2, 2018, Plaintiff Michael Anthony Qui...
...deemed the instant action and the State Farm Action to be related cases. (8/8/19 Minute Order.) On September 4, 2019, the Court continued the hearing because Defendant Avery failed to file a notice of motion in the State Farm Action and because State Farm was not served with the instant Motion. (9/4/19 Minute Order.) The Court again continued the Motion on December 18, 2019 because Defendant Avery had fai...
ZAYAS V. HCR MANOR CARE SERVICES, LLC
Motion No. 1: Defendants’ (HCR Manor Care Services, LLC, Manor Care of Fountain Valley, CA, LLC, Heartland Employment Services, LLC, and Triet Keiu) Motion to Consolidate Actions (Motion), filed on 11-19-19 under ROA No. 164, is GRANTED. Code of Civil Procedure section 1048, subdivision (a), states, “When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court,...
...(b), and 1048, subdivision (a), the court GRANTS the court GRANTS Defendants’ (HCR Manor Care Services, LLC, Manor Care of Fountain Valley, CA, LLC, Heartland Employment Services, LLC, and Triet Keiu) Motion to Consolidate Actions filed on 11-19-19 under ROA No. 164. The wrongful death action arises out of the same conduct as the survival action. The lead case number is 30-2019-01061318. Defendants are to...
AMERICAN GRANDSTAND SEATING CO INC VS UNITED PROTECTION SERV
...Brown Responding Party: Unopposed Tentative Ruling: The Motion to Consolidate is granted. American Grandstand Seating, Co., Inc., Michael H. Brown, and Michael D. Brown seek consolidation of related cases nos. BC659602 and 19STCV06045. Code Civ. Proc. § 1048(a) provides, “[w]hen actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of an...
...Ex. A, p. 4:12-13; p. 7:1-2, 19-20.) Plaintiff in the Lead Action now seeks to enforce the settlement agreement. Good cause having been shown, cases nos. BC659602 and 19STCV06045 are consolidated. The Motion is granted.
Judge Janene Beronio
Defendant Casas’s Motion to Stay Unlawful Detainer Case and to Consolidate Cases for Trial The court grants the Motion to Consolidate. In light of the ground that motion, the Motion to Stay is moot. Ordinarily the only triable issue in a UD proceeding is the right to possession, a...
...also pending before this court regarding the property, namely IOC vs. Wilmington Trust at al., Case No. 2018 – 10216698. That case has already been consolidated with the Wright case. Plaintiff Casas’ motion to consolidate the unlawful detainer action of Wilmington Trust v. Casas, Case No. 30-2019-010908749 with the unlimited civil action of Wright v. Bank of America, Case NO. 30-2011-00449059 is granted ...
XIAN TIAN (SIMON) MAI VS SILKROAD EXCLUSIVE, INC.
...over or make available for inspection certain corporate records, San Joaquin County Superior Court Case No. STK-CV-UWM-2019-12900. On October 28, 2019, the Court ordered the matter related to two other cases, San Joaquin County Superior Court Case Nos., STK-CV-UCC-2019-0013541 and STK-CV-UPCG-2019-0013658, which seek removal of Petitioner from his position as director of Silkroad Exclusive, Inc. and alleg...
... (See San Joaquin County Superior Court Case Nos., STK-CV-UCC-2019-0013541 and STK-CV-UPCG-2019-0013658.) On November 13, 2019, Petitioner filed his reply. On January 17, 2020, Respondent filed a motion to consolidate the writ proceeding with San Joaquin County Superior Court Case Nos., STK-CV-UCC-2019-0013541 and STK-CV-UPCG-2019-0013658. The parties do not dispute the consolidation of San Joaquin ...
1. Plaintiff Bard, Burghardt, Cundall and Peterson’s Motion to Consolidate Cases for Trial 2. Status Conference
FREDERICK W STEPHENSON VS. NATHALIE FERN BELDEN
Defendant Russell W. Carlson ("Moving Party") filed this motion for an order consolidating cases and objecting to settlement. These are two distinct requests for relief that require separate motions and would be considered by separate departments. However, the motion requests consolidation as a p...
...the Court will treat the motion as a request for consolidation. The motion to consolidate is DENIED. Moving Party failed to comply with the requirements for a motion to consolidate. For example, the motion does not contain the caption of all cases to be consolidated and fails to identify the parties and their respective attorneys so that the Court may determine all parties in all cases have been properl...
SAPIR LEA MATZLIACH VS HUGO CASTRO
Motion to Consolidate Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. No opposing papers were filed. BACKGROUND In 19STCV14400, on April 25, 2019, Plaintiff Sapir Lea Matzliach filed a co...
...1048. On January 16, 2019, the Court deemed case number 19STCV14400 as related to case number 19STCV41414. In 19STCV14400, on January 21, 2020, the Court continued the hearing on Defendant Hugo Castro’s motion to consolidate to February 11, 2020. In 19STCV14400, trial is set for April 30, 2020. In 19STCV41414, trial is set for May 17, 2020. PARTY’S REQUEST Defendant Hugo Castro (“Moving Party”) asks the...
The Motion (ROA # 25) of Plaintiff Carleton Hargrove ("Plaintiff'), individually and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act, for an order compelling Defen...
...economy, the Court continues this hearing until after Judge Medel has ruled on the consolidation Motion in 37-2019-00015722-CU-OE-CTL. No further papers are authorized to be filed in connection with this Motion prior to the continued hearing on March 6, 2020.
JILL JENKINS VS DAVID O. MARLOW, ET AL.
Motion to Consolidate Having considered the moving and opposing papers, the Court rules as follows. No reply papers were filed. BACKGROUND In 18STCV09795, on December 21, 2018, Plaintiff Jill Jenkins file...
...dismissed Defendant The Hertz Corporation dba Rental Car Finance Corp. without prejudice. In 18STCV09795, on January 2, 2020, Defendants/Cross-Defendants David Marlow and David O. Marlow, Inc. filed a motion to consolidate case number 18STCV09795 with case number 19STCV00218 pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1048. In 18STCV09795, trial is set for June 19, 2020. In 19STCV00218, trial...
MICHAEL BURNS, AN INDIVIDUAL VS CITY OF SANTA MONICA, A PUBLIC ENTITY , ET AL.
Defendant County of Los Angeles’s Motion to Consolidate is GRANTED. Defendant to provide notice. MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE “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 o...
...discretion. (Todd-Stenberg v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust (48 Cal.App.4th 976, 978–79.) County moves to consolidate this case with the related case, 19STCV35515, County of Los Angeles v. Sina Mardani. (Motion at p. 2.) While this case concerns the County’s alleged negligence in failing to maintain a sewer mainline that caused an overflow in February 2018, the 19STCV35515 case concerns the same incident, bu...
THERESA ARNOLD, MS. VS SHELLEY LYNNE SPIEGEL, MS., ET AL.
...STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT THERESA ARNOLD, Plaintiff(s), vs. SHELLEY LYNNE SPIEGEL, ET AL., Defendant(s). CASE NO: 19STCV17567 [TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE Dept. 31 1:30 p.m. February 6, 2020 1. Background Facts Plaintiff, Theresa Arnold filed this action against Defendants, Shelley Lynne Spiegel and Juan Gonzalez for damages arising ...
...automobile accident that gives rise to this action. Because Gonzalez is uninsured, Plaintiff made a claim with Allstate; Allstate denies coverage, contending Gonzalez was not at fault for the accident. 2. Motion to Consolidate At this time, Plaintiff moves to consolidate the civil action with the UIM action. CCP §1281.2 provides: The court shall order the petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate the contr...
CALIFORNIA JOINT POWERS INSURANCE AUTHORITY VS GASTON RAGAZZ
...Ragazz Motion by Defendant, Gaston Ragazzo, to Consolidate Two Related Matters and Adopt Trial Date Set in Related Case is GRANTED in part and denied in part. The motion to consolidate is granted; the motion to set the trial date as 5/7/2020 is denied. The trial date is the trial date in the lead case, 5/18/2020. On 9/9/19, the Court deemed BC706237 related to 18STCV04303. Case No. BC706237 was designate...
...seeks consolidation of the cases. The decision to consolidate is a matter for the court’s discretion. Muller v. Robinson (1959) 174 Cal. App. 2d 511, 515. Consolidation is appropriate here since both cases arise from the same accident, involve substantially the same parties, and common questions of law or fact are pending. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1048(a).
RAMOS V. AT&T MOBILITY SERVICES, LLC
...clearly related to Isabel Ramos vs. AT&T Mobility Wireless Operations Holdings Inc., OCSC Case # 2019-01114431 (The Hon. Linda Marks, in Dept. C10) (“Ramos I”). As with consolidation, the rule about related cases is established to promote judicial economy as well as economy for the parties. (See Cal. Rule of Court 3.300(a)(1),(2) and (4) and Petersen v. Bank of America Corp. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 238, 248 (“C...
...single, centrally managed proceeding . . . The affinity for economies of scale manifests . . . in a number of other procedural contexts. These include the … rules of court requiring designation of related cases to avoid ‘substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges.”).) In addition, the claims within Ramos I and Ramos II could well have been brought in a single complaint filed b...
Plaintiff Carol Ann Howard's Motion to Consolidate Cases is DENIED. (ROA 97.) The court does not believe consolidation of this action with the probate case is appropriate.
MATTHEW ROBERT HORNER ET AL VS ARMANDO RODRIGUEZ BANDA ET AL
Motion to Consolidate Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. No opposing papers were filed. BACKGROUND In BC722801, on September 20, 2018, Plaintiffs Matthew Robert Horner and Li...
...number BC722801 as related to case number BC723467. In BC722801, on January 2, 2020, Defendants Moon Valley Nursery Inc. dba Moon Mountain Farms LLC, Armando Rodriguez Banda, and Leslie W. Blake filed a motion to consolidate case number BC722801 with case number BC723467 pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1048. In both BC722801 and BC723467, trial is set for July 27, 2020. PARTY’S REQU...
TIFFANY RIVERS VS RODRIGO ERNESTO HENRIQUEZ
...AL., Defendant(s). CASE NO: BC718957 [TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE Dept. 31 1:30 p.m. February 4, 2020 BC718957, BC718958, and 18STSC09724 all arise out of the same accident. The cases have previously been deemed related, and are all pending in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse. At this time, the Defendant moves to consolidate the two actions for all purposes. CCP §1048...
...485.) Each case presents its own facts and circumstances, but the court generally considers the following: (1) timeliness of the motion: i.e., whether granting consolidation would delay the trial of any of the cases involved; (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 ...
...the lead case. The case management judge assigned to the lead case shall hear case management issues in the consolidated cases. The case management timelines applicable to the lead case shall govern all cases. These actions involve claims arising from the alleged wrongful termination of Ms. Buford and Plaintiff Gary Vorce ("Mr. Vorce") in retaliation for whistleblower activities. Ms. Buford was employed as...
GARY VORCE VS. MATHESON TRUCKING INC
The motion of Defendants to continue trial is DENIED as moot. The Court anticipates granting a motion to consolidate this action with Sindy Buford v. Matheson Trucking, Inc., et al., Case No. 34-2018-00226011) (the "Buford Action"). As the Buford action will be the lead case, the case timelines in the...