GATEWAY INSURANCE COMPANY VS KEITH BOWMAN, ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STLC04517    Hearing Date: April 5, 2021    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Mon., April 5, 2021 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Gateway Insurance Co. v. Bowman, et al. COMPL. FILED: 05-28-20

CASE NUMBER: 20STLC04517 DISC. C/O: 10-30-21

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION FOR ORDER TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED CASES

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Gateway Insurance Company

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

(CCP § 1048; CRC 3.350)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Gateway Insurance Company’s Motion to Consolidate Related Cases is DENIED.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of April 1, 2021 [ ] Late [ ] None

REPLY: None filed as of April 1, 2021 [ ] Late [ ] None

ANALYSIS:

1. Background

On May 28, 2020, Plaintiff Gateway Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Keith Bowman (“Keith”) and Marshall Bowman (“Marshall”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Both Defendant Keith and Defendant Marshall were sub-served on June 15, 2020. (6/16/20 Proofs of Service.)

Plaintiff first filed a motion for order to consolidate related cases on August 12, 2020, which was set for hearing for January 14, 2021. On January 13, 2021, Plaintiff took the Motion off calendar.

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Order to Consolidate Related Cases (the “Motion”). No opposition has been filed.

1. Legal Standard

California 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.)

1. Discussion

Plaintiff seeks to consolidate this case with the Small Claims Case, Marshall Anthony Bowman v. Khatchatour Khatchatrian, et al., Case No. 20VESC03015 (the “Small Claims Case”). (Mot., pp. 5:19-6:7.) Plaintiff argues that both this action and the Small Claims Case involve the same facts and parties and thus a single trial would avoid unnecessary costs and expenses to the respective parties. (Id.)

However, the Small Claims Action was dismissed without prejudice following Defendant Marshall’s failure to appear for a non-jury trial on March 17, 2021. (3/17/21 Minute Order.) As the Small Claims Action has already been disposed of, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.

1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Gateway Insurance Company’s Motion to Consolidate Related Cases is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 20STLC04517    Hearing Date: January 14, 2021    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Thu., January 14, 2021 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Gateway Insurance Co. v. Bowman, et al. COMPL. FILED: 05-28-20

CASE NUMBER: 20STLC04517 DISC. C/O: 10-30-21

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION FOR ORDER TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED CASES

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Gateway Insurance Company

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

(CCP § 1048; CRC 3.350)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Gateway Insurance Company’s Motion for Order to Consolidate Related Cases is DENIED.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of January 12, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of January 12, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

1. Background

On May 28, 2020, Plaintiff Gateway Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendants Keith Bowman and Marshall Bowman (collectively, “Defendants”). Defendants were served on June 15, 2020, but have not yet filed an answer.

On August 12, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Order to Consolidate Related Cases (the “Motion”) and a Notice of Related Case for small claims case Marshall A. Bowman v. Khatchatour Khatchatrian, et al., Case No. 20VESC00446 (the “Small Claims Case”). To date, no opposition has been filed.

1. Legal Standard

California 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.)

1. Discussion

Plaintiff seeks to consolidate this case with the Small Claims Case. (Mot., p. 1:18-23.) Plaintiff argues the actions are related as they arise out of the same alleged vehicular loss involving the same facts and the same parties. (Mot., Mendelson Decl., ¶ 3.)

However, the Court notes that the Small Claims Action was dismissed without prejudice following Plaintiff’s failure to appear for a non-jury trial on September 21, 2020. (9/21/20 Minute Order.) As the Small Claims Action has already been disposed of, the instant Motion is DENIED.

1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Gateway Insurance Company’s Motion for Order to Consolidate Related Cases is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.