CHANEL PETTERSON VS SONIA GARCIA

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 17STLC02040    Hearing Date: January 12, 2021    Dept: 26

Petterson v. Garcia, et al.

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

(Code Civ. Proc., § 1048(a))

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Sonia Garcia’s Motion to Consolidate is GRANTED. ALL HEARING DATES IN LASC CASE NO. 17STLC02041 ARE VACATED. THE INSTANT ACTION REMAINS THE LEAD CASE AND ALL FUTURE FILINGS ARE TO BE UNDER THE LEAD CASE NUMBER.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Chanel Petterson (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant Sonia Garcia (“Defendant”) on September 15, 2017. The matter came for trial on March 15, 2019, at which time Plaintiff indicated she would pursue default and default judgment. Defendant, however, filed her Answer on April 9, 2019 before entry of default was requested. On August 14, 2019, the Court deemed this action related to Rubalcava v. Garcia, LASC Case No. 17STLC02041 (“17STLC02041”) and designed this action the lead case. Both cases are assigned to Department 26 in the Spring Street Courthouse.

Defendant now brings the instant Motion to Consolidate. 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 consolidate must:

(A) List all named parties in each case, the names of those who have appeared, and the names of their respective 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 numbered case;

(B) Must be served on all attorneys of record and all non-represented parties in all of the cases sought to be consolidated; and

(C) Must have a proof of service filed as part of the motion.

(Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.350, subd. (a).) Motions to consolidate are also governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 1048. The purpose of consolidation is to avoid unnecessary costs or delay, avoid duplication of procedure, particularly in the proof of issues common to both action, and avoid inconsistent results by hearing and deciding common issues together. (See Estate of Baker (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 471, 485.) 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.) 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 rights of any party. (See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1956) 47 Cal.2d 428, 430–431.)

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.)

Discussion

Defendant moves to consolidate this action with LASC Case. No. 17STLC02041 on the grounds that both cases arise out of the same set of operative facts, and therefore require resolution of common questions of law and fact. The notice of the Motion to Consolidate complies with Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.350, subdivision (a)(1), except that it was not filed in LASC Case. No. 17STLC02041. The Court finds that this still amounts to substantial compliance with the notice requirements insofar as the notice was properly filed in this action, both cases are assigned to this Department, and the caption contains information for both cases. The proof of service demonstrates compliance with Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.350, subdivision (a)(2).

As to the merits, both actions arise out of the same incident, namely the automobile accident involving Plaintiffs Chanel Petterson and Ashley Rubalcava and Defendant that occurred on September 15, 2015, at the intersection of Fir Avenue and 92nd Street, Los Angeles, California. (Compl., ¶MV-1; LASC Case No. 17STLC02041 Compl., ¶MV-1; Alban Decl., ¶¶2-3.) Both actions will require resolution of common questions of law and fact pertaining to the liability of the drivers involved in that accident and of the injuries sustained by each of the parties as a result.

Based on the foregoing, the Motion to Consolidate is GRANTED. ALL HEARING DATES IN LASC CASE NO. 17STLC02041 ARE VACATED. THE INSTANT ACTION REMAINS THE LEAD CASE AND ALL FUTURE FILINGS ARE TO BE UNDER THE LEAD CASE NUMBER.

Moving party to give notice.

Case Number: 17STLC02040    Hearing Date: December 09, 2019    Dept: 94

Petterson v. Garcia, et al.

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

(CRC RULE 3.1322)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Sonia Garcia’s Motion to Continue Trial is GRANTED. TRIAL IS CONTINUED TO APRIL 13, 2020 AT 8:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 94. MOTION AND DISCOVERY CUT OFF DATES TO FOLLOW THE NEW TRIAL DATE.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Chanel Petterson (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant Sonia Garcia (“Defendant”) on September 15, 2017. The matter came for trial on March 15, 2019, at which time Plaintiff indicated she would pursue default and default judgment. Defendant, however, filed her Answer on April 9, 2019. Thereafter, Defendant filed motions compelling discovery responses that were granted on September 10, 2019. Defendant now brings the instant Motion to Continue Trial. To date, no opposition has been filed.

Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits. (CRC Rule 3.1332(c).) The Court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. (CRC Rule 3.1332(c).) The Court may look to the following factors in determining whether a trial continuance is warranted: (1) proximity of the trial date; (2) whether there was any previous continuance of trial due to any party; (3) the length of the continuance requested; (4) the availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion; (5) the prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; and (6) whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial. (See generally, CRC Rule 3.1332(d)(1)-(11).) Additionally, factors for the Court to consider include: a party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; the proximity of the trial date; whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; and any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application. (CRC Rule 3.1332(c), (d).)

Defendant has demonstrated good cause for a trial continuance. Defendant has only been participating in this action since April 2019, and Plaintiff has made no effort to advance the case since filing the Complaint. (Answer, filed 4/9/19.) Defendant has required the Court’s intervention to obtain basic discovery and is in the process of trying to schedule depositions. (Motion, Alban Decl., ¶¶4-5.) The currently scheduled trial date of December 10, 2019 does not leave Defendant sufficient time to complete discovery and prepare for trial. Although the trial date was reset once before, it was done so prior to Defendant’s appearance in this action. Nor does Plaintiff oppose the requested continuance.

Based on the foregoing, Defendant Sonia Garcia’s Motion to Continue Trial Date is GRANTED. TRIAL IS CONTINUED TO APRIL 13, 2020 AT 8:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 94. MOTION AND DISCOVERY CUT OFF DATES ARE TO FOLLOW THE NEW TRIAL DATE.

Moving party to give notice.