CESAR SANCHEZ ET AL VS GERARDO MARTINEZ

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****5206 Hearing Date: March 24, 2022 Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On June 14, 2017, Plaintiffs, Cesar Sanchez and Maria Sanchez (collectively, the “Sanchezes”) filed Case No. ****5206 against Defendants, Gerardo Martinez (“Martinez”) and Altitude, Inc. (“Altitude”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. On November 12, 2021, this matter was consolidated with Case No. 20STCV40249, in which Petitioner Mercury Insurance Group (“Mercury”) filed a petition to compel arbitration of uninsured motorist claim against the Sanchezes. This consolidated action is currently set for trial for April 19, 2022.

Mercury now moves to continue the current trial date to a new date in late 2022. Any opposition to the motion was due on or before March 11, 2022. As of March 20, 2022, 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).) Additional 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).)

Here, Mercury avers a continuance is necessary because as a result of the above actions being consolidated, Mercury has only had three months to conduct discovery in this consolidated matter. Mercury argues the matter is, thus, not ready to proceed to trial on April 19, 2022. Further, Mercury attests that the parties have scheduled mediation in this case for March 28, 2022, and wish to pursue settlement prior to trial. Mercury provides that all parties have agreed to the continuance and submits a signed stipulation by the parties agreed to continue trial to September 2022.

The motion is unopposed, and Mercury establishes good cause for a slight continuance in light of the fact this action was consolidated three months ago and the parties have scheduled mediation prior to trial.

Mercury is requesting that trial be continued to the last quarter of 2022 and asserts that the parties have stipulated that under the tolling provisions of Covid-19 California Rules of Court Emergency Rule No. 9 tolling provisions in order to not violate the five-year rule to bring an action to trial. (See CCP 583.310, 583.360.) Mercury attests that since the Sanchezes filed Case No. ****5206 on June 14, 2017, and with six months of tolling, the matter must be heard and tried before January 14, 2023.

However, the court’s trial calendar is extremely full and a requested trial date in September or late 2022 in unavailable. A trial date of July 26, 2022, is currently available. Thereafter, the court is generally setting trial dates in Spring 2023, and given the age of this case, and per the parties’ own stipulation, a continuance until that time is inappropriate.

Mercury’s motion to continue trial is granted. The April 19, 2022, trial date is continued to July 26, 2022 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse. The April 5, 2022, FSC is continued to July 12, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 31. All discovery and expert cut-off dates are continued to reflect the new trial date.

Further, in reviewing the file, it appears that there are no proofs of service of summons on file in the uninsured motorist case, Case No. 20STCV40249, despite the fact that it was filed in October of 2020. The case is not at issue. The court therefore sets an OSC re: dismissal for failure to file a Proof of Service of Summons at 8:30 a.m. on April 28, 2022.

Mercury is ordered to give notice.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number. The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument. You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.

Dated this 24^th day of March 2022

b"

Case Number: ****5206 Hearing Date: November 12, 2021 Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. Cases at Issue

On June 14, 2017, Plaintiffs, Cesar Sanchez and Maria Sanchez (collectively, the “Sanchezes”) filed Case No. ****5206 against Defendants, Gerardo Martinez (“Martinez”) and Altitude, Inc. (“Altitude”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.

On October 20, 2020, Petitioner Mercury Insurance Group (“Mercury”) filed the petition in 20STCV40249 to compel arbitration of uninsured motorist claim against the Sanchezes.

The two cases have been deemed related and are pending in Department 31. (Min. Order relating cases, April 23, 2021.)

At this time, Mercury moves to consolidate the two actions arguing that both matters arise out of the same motor vehicle accident involving the Sanchezes, Martinez, and with a third-party motorist whose identity is unknown to Mercury. Mercury contends the matter should be consolidated for discovery and trial to avoid an anomalous result with two different forums. Mercury asserts consolidation will promote judicial economy by enabling a single trial.

Defendants Martinez and Altitude (collectively, “Defendants”) oppose the motion. Defendants assert they will not agree to arbitration of this action, and prejudice will result to the parties if proof of insurance is introduced to the jury. Defendants state they do not oppose consolidation for purposes of discovery only, and the risk of inconsistent rulings is outweighed by the likelihood of prejudice to Defendants.

2. Motion to Consolidate

a. Analysis

CCP ; 1048 grants discretion to the trial courts to consolidate actions involving common questions of law or fact. The trial court's decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion. A consolidation of actions does not affect the rights of the parties. The purpose of consolidation is to avoid unnecessary costs or delay, avoid duplication of procedure, particularly in the proof of issues common to both actions, 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.)

A trial court has authority to “consolidate a contractual arbitration proceeding between an insurer and an insured as to uninsured motorist coverage in the insured's pending action against third parties — that is, to join the insurer as a defendant as to uninsured motorist coverage issues — for all purposes, including trial, in order to avoid conflicting rulings on a common issue of law or fact.” (Mercury Ins. Group v. Sup. Ct. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 332, 345.)

Furthermore, in the general case, even in the presence of a petition to compel contractual arbitration, there is no requirement that issues subject to contractual arbitration may be resolved only by means of contractual arbitration, or at least only by means of some kind of “arbitration” resulting in a binding and final decision. To be sure, provided that the allegations necessary to such a petition are true, the contractual arbitration law, in Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2, generally mandates a trial court to compel. But not always. The trial court may decline to do so if the petitioning party has waived its right. (Id., subd. (a).) Or if grounds exist to “revoke” the underlying arbitration agreement by rescission. (Id., subd. (b).) Or if there is an issue of law or fact common to the arbitration and a pending action or proceeding with a third party and there is a possibility of conflicting rulings thereon. (Id., subd. (c).) In such a situation, it may consolidate. (Id., foll. subd. (c).) If it does, it effectively orders the resolution of the issues subject to arbitration within the action or special proceeding in question and, therefore, outside of arbitration. For, in ordering intervention or joinder, it necessarily “refuse [s] to enforce the arbitration agreement....” (Ibid.)

(Id. at 347.)

In Mercury Ins., the plaintiffs filed a complaint against a driver, the driver’s employer, and an unidentified motorist who fled the scene by fictitious name. (Id. at 338.) The plaintiffs presented their insurer, Mercury, with an uninsured motorist claim. (Id.) The plaintiff made a demand on Mercury for contractual arbitration, and a contractual arbitration proceeding commenced. (Id.) The plaintiffs then moved to consolidate the contractual arbitration proceeding with Mercury as to the uninsured motorist coverage issues with the pending civil action to essentially join Mercury as a defendant. (Id.) The superior court granted the motion and consolidated the contractual arbitration with the civil action and then diverted the action to judicial arbitration. (Id.) The California Supreme Court affirmed, finding

“a trial court has authority to consolidate a contractual arbitration proceeding between an insurer and an insured as to uninsured motorist coverage in the insured's pending action against third parties … for all purposes, including trial, in order to avoid conflicting rulings on a common issue of law or fact.” (Id. at 345.)

In this case, the court has the authority to consolidate a civil action with a related uninsured or under-insured motorist arbitration. Both actions concern claims involving the same motor vehicle accident between the Sanchezes, Defendants, and a third-party motorist. Consolidation of the two actions will ensure there are no conflicting rulings and the issues are properly determined. The court does not find that consolidation will confuse the jury. Moreover, the risk of inconsistent findings at trial outweighs Defendants’ claimed prejudice. The court is confident that the trial judge will be able to make appropriate instructions and admonitions to avoid juror confusion as well as eliminate any prejudice resulting from the insurance issue. The court finds that consolidation should result in a more efficient and economical trial and reduce the possibility of inconsistent verdicts.

Therefore, Mercury’s motion to consolidate the actions is granted.

b. Trial Date

****5206 is currently set for trial on April 6, 2022. 20STCV40249 is currently set for trial on April 19, 2022. The Court continues the April 6, 2022, trial date and sets the consolidated cases for trial on April 19, 2022. The FSC is scheduled for April 5, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. in D-31. All hearing dates in 20STCV40249are vacated. The parties must reschedule any hearings in 20STCV40249for hearing in ****5206. All future papers must be filed in ****5206 only and all future hearings must be scheduled in ****5206 only.

Mercury’s motion to consolidate actions is granted.

Mercury is ordered to give notice.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number. The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument. You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.

Dated this 12^th day of November, 2021