On 10/24/2018 ELAINE J LOPEZ filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against JUAN CARLOS GARCIA GOMEZ. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JON R. TAKASUGI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Spring Street Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
JON R. TAKASUGI
LOPEZ ELAINE J.
GARCIA GOMEZ JUAN CARLOS
CHESNEY STEPHEN LOUIS
HONG LYNDON HYON
5/15/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re: Non-Jury Trial)
5/15/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order Re: Non-Jury Trial) of 05/15/2020
3/27/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order
1/3/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Withdrawal of Motion to Relate and Consolidate Cases
12/12/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion - Other Order to Relate Cases)
11/7/2019: Motion re: (name extension) - Motion re: Order to Relate Cases
11/7/2019: Motion to Consolidate - Motion to Consolidate
8/19/2019: Answer - Answer
8/21/2019: Notice of Related Case - Notice of Related Case
12/31/2018: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service
11/5/2018: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service
10/24/2018: Complaint - Complaint
10/24/2018: Summons - Summons on Complaint
10/24/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet
10/24/2018: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case
Hearing10/27/2021 at 10:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of ServiceRead MoreRead Less
Hearing03/23/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury TrialRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order (Court Order Re: Non-Jury Trial)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Court Order Re: Non-Jury Trial) of 05/15/2020; Filed by: ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketOn the Court's own motion, Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 06/25/2020 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court was rescheduled to 03/23/2021 08:30 AMRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by: ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketOn the Court's own motion, Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 04/22/2020 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Rescheduled by Court was rescheduled to 06/25/2020 08:30 AMRead MoreRead Less
DocketPursuant to the request of moving party, Hearing on Motion to Consolidate scheduled for 01/08/2020 at 10:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party on 01/04/2020Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Withdrawal of Motion to Relate and Consolidate Cases; Filed by: Juan Carlos Garcia Gomez (Defendant); Mariela Vasquez (Defendant); As to: Elaine J. Lopez (Plaintiff); Juan Carlos Garcia Gomez (Defendant); Mariela Vasquez (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketUpdated -- Motion re: Order to Relate Cases: Filed By: Mariela Vasquez (Defendant),Juan Carlos Garcia Gomez (Defendant); Result: Denied; Result Date: 12/12/2019Read MoreRead Less
DocketCase reassigned to Stanley Mosk Courthouse in Department 94 - Hon. James E. Blancarte; Reason: Inventory TransferRead MoreRead Less
DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: Elaine J. Lopez (Plaintiff); As to: Mariela Vasquez (Defendant); Service Date: 12/15/2018; Service Cost: 177.00; Service Cost Waived: NoRead MoreRead Less
DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: Elaine J. Lopez (Plaintiff); As to: Juan Carlos Garcia Gomez (Defendant); Service Date: 11/01/2018; Service Cost: 42.00; Service Cost Waived: NoRead MoreRead Less
DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 04/22/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94Read MoreRead Less
DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 10/27/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94Read MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by: Elaine J. Lopez (Plaintiff); As to: Juan Carlos Garcia Gomez (Defendant); Mariela Vasquez (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Elaine J. Lopez (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketCase assigned to Hon. Jon R. Takasugi in Department 94 Stanley Mosk CourthouseRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: 18STLC13218 Hearing Date: January 08, 2020 Dept: 94
Defendants Juan Carlos Garcia Gomez and Mariela Vasquez’s Motion to Consolidate is DENIED.
On October 24, 2018, Plaintiff Elaine Lopez filed a civil limited complaint for personal injury arising out of a motor vehicle accident (the “Lopez action”) against Defendants Juan Carlos Garcia Gomez and Mariela Vasquez (collectively, “Defendants”), case number 18STLC13218. On October 18, 2018, Plaintiff Stephanie Sedano (“Sedano”) filed a small claims action (the “Sedano action”), case number 18DWSC05279, against Defendants arising out of the same motor vehicle accident. On May 30, 2019, Department 1 of the Bellflower Courthouse ordered judgment entered for Sedano and against Defendants. (05/30/19 Minute Order, Sedano Action.) Defendants appealed the judgment and the action is set for trial de novo on February 6, 2020 in Department 1 of the Bellflower Courthouse. (11/08/19 Minute Order, Sedano Action.)
On August 20, 2019, Defendants filed a Notice of Related Case in the small claims action. On August 21, 2019. Defendants filed a Notice of Related case in this limited civil action. On November 07, 2019, Defendants filed the instant Motion to Consolidate (the “Motion”) and a Motion for Order to Relate cases. The Motion for Order to Relate cases was set for hearing in Department 1 of this Courthouse
On December 12, 2019, Department 1 denied Defendants’ Motion for Order to Relate the Sedano action and the Lopez Action. (12/12/19 Minute Order, Lopez Action.) The Court reasoned it was improper to relate a limited civil case with a small claims case, in part, because it is prohibited by Acuna v. Anderson (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1467, 1472, which held that a trial court lacks jurisdiction to consolidate small claims appeals with a case pending in the superior court. (Id.)
To date, no opposition or reply briefs for this Motion have been filed.
II. 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).) Also, the consolidation statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 1048, states in relevant part:
(a) 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.
(b) The court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy, may order a separate trial of any cause of action, including a cause of action asserted in a cross-complaint, or of any separate issue or of any number of causes of action or issues, preserving the right of trial by jury required by the Constitution or a statute of this state or of the United States.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a).) 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. (See Fellner v. Steinbaum (1955) 132 Cal.App.2d 509, 511.)
Defendants move to consolidate this action with the Sedano action on the grounds that both cases involve the same parties, arise from common issues of law and fact, and involve identical witnesses. (Mot., p. 2.)
However, a motion to consolidate may only be brought with respect to cases in the same department or related cases. Specifically, under Los Angeles Superior Court Rule 3.3, subdivision (g), “[c]ases 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.”
Here, the cases have not been assigned to the same department, nor have the cases been deemed related. Defendants’ request to deem the cases related has already been denied. (12/12/19 Minute Order, Lopez Action.) The Sedano action remains pending in Department 1 of the Bellflower Courthouse.
Accordingly, this Motion is also denied.
IV. Conclusion and Order
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Consolidate is DENIED.
Moving party to give notice.
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCdept94@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.
Case Number: 18STLC13218 Hearing Date: December 12, 2019 Dept: 1
Elaine J. Lopez v. Juan Carlos Garcia Gomez, et al (18STLC13218)
On October 24, 2018, Elaine J. Lopez filed a limited civil personal injury complaint against Juan Carlos Garcia Gomez and Mariela Vasquez arising out of a motor vehicle accident. On August 21, 2019, Defendants filed a Notice of Related Case in 18STLC13218 and small claims case 18DWSC05279 Sedano v. Gomez, et al contending the cases were related on every ground enumerated in CRC 3.300(a). On May 30, 2019, the court ordered judgment in favor of the plaintiff in 18DWSC05279. Defendants filed their Notice of Appeal on July 12, 2019 and the appeal of the small claims judgment is set for trial de novo on February 6, 2020 in Department 1 of the Bellflower Courthouse.
On November 7, 2019, Defendants filed a Motion to Relate Cases in 18STLC13218 with the hearing set in Department 1. The motion is unopposed. Defendants also filed a Motion to Consolidate with a hearing set for January 8, 2020 in Department 94.
Pursuant to LASC Local Rule 3.3(f)(3), “[i]n the event that the pertinent judge under California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(h)(1)(A)(B)(C), does not order related any of the cases set forth in the Notice of Related Cases, any party may file a motion to have the cases related” in Department 1 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse. (See also CRC 3.300(h)(1)(D).) Defendants properly filed and served the Notice of Related Case on August 20, 2019. As significant time has passed without a ruling on the Notice, Department 1 shall consider the merits of Defendants’ Motion.
Defendants improperly seek to relate a limited civil law case with a small claims case with the stated intent to seek consolidation of the two actions in Department 94. Defendants’ proposed course of action is prohibited by Acuna v. Gunderson Chevrolet, Inc. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1467, 1472, which held the trial court lacks jurisdiction to consolidate a small claims appeal with a related case pending in the superior court.
Moreover, the court “must protect the informal nature and the simplicity of small claims procedures in order to preserve the nature of that forum as one which yields speedy commonsense justice without the need to resort to lawyers.” (Jellinek v. Superior Court (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 652, 658.) Relation of 18STLC13218 and 18DWSC05279 would essentially amount to a transfer of the small claims action. However, the only type of small claims transfer expressly authorized by the California Code of Civil Procedure is a transfer at the request of a defendant whose cross-claim exceeds the jurisdictional limits of small claims court. (CCP § 116.390(a); Acuna, supra at 1472.) Defendants do not seek a transfer pursuant to CCP § 116.390 in their motion and such requests are not determined by Department 1.
For these reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Relate Cases is DENIED in its entirety.
Counsel for Defendants to give Notice.