Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 02/02/2021 at 22:49:31 (UTC).

MATTHEW AARON PICKART VS MALCOLM S WATSON ET AL

Case Summary

On 04/18/2017 MATTHEW AARON PICKART filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against MALCOLM S WATSON. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are JON R. TAKASUGI, HOLLY E. KENDIG and THOMAS D. LONG. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8162

  • Filing Date:

    04/18/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

JON R. TAKASUGI

HOLLY E. KENDIG

THOMAS D. LONG

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

PICKART MATTHEW AARON

PICKART MATTHEW

Defendants, Respondents, Cross Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

SEALS CANDACE

NULL THOMAS

WATSON MALCOLM SINCLAIR

DOES 1 TO 100

NULL BLANTON THOMAS

WATSON MALCOLM S.

NABER BASSAM MICHAEL

HUGHES CURTIS FRANKLIN

JERRY RAGLAND TRUSTEE OF THE THOMAS B. NULL TRUST

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

NOVIK ERICK B.

KLEIN MEGAN

NOVIK ERICK BEN-ARIE

NGUYEN MINH TRI

Defendant, Respondent and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

ZYMAN STELLA H. ESQ.

WESIERSKI & ZUREK LLP

ZUREK RONALD

O'CONNOR EDWARD RICHARD

Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/17/2021
  • Hearing03/17/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 31 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/03/2021
  • Hearing03/03/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 31 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/12/2020
  • DocketNotice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by Edward Richard O'Connor (Attorney)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/12/2020
  • DocketAmendment to Cross-Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name); Filed by Malcolm Sinclair Watson (Cross-Complainant); Candace Seals (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/27/2020
  • DocketRequest for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by Matthew Pickart (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by Matthew Pickart (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/30/2020
  • DocketNotice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by Matthew Aaron Pickart (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/14/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 31, Thomas D. Long, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/09/2020
  • Docketat 10:30 AM in Department 31, Thomas D. Long, Presiding; Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/28/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 31, Thomas D. Long, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
129 More Docket Entries
  • 05/26/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Candace Seals (Defendant); Malcolm S. Watson (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/26/2017
  • DocketGENERAL DENIAL TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/26/2017
  • DocketNOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/26/2017
  • DocketCross-Complaint; Filed by Candace Seals (Defendant); Malcolm S. Watson (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/26/2017
  • DocketNotice; Filed by Candace Seals (Defendant); Malcolm S. Watson (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/26/2017
  • DocketGeneral Denial; Filed by Candace Seals (Defendant); Malcolm S. Watson (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/26/2017
  • DocketSummons on Cross Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1. MOTOR VEHICLE 2. GENERAL NEGLIGENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Matthew Aaron Pickart (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC658162    Hearing Date: July 06, 2020    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MATTHEW AARON PICKART,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

MALCOLM S. WATSON, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: BC658162 (R/T 20STCV00674)

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

Dept. 31

8:30 a.m.

July 6, 2020

  1. Cases at Issue

    Plaintiff, Matthew Aaron Pickart has filed two lawsuits for damages arising out of three separate automobile accidents. BC658162 arises out of accidents that occurred on 4/30/15 and 1/06/16. 20STCV00674 arises out of a subsequent accident that occurred on 8/31/19. Plaintiff complains of overlapping injuries as a result of each of the three accidents.

  2. Related Cases

    BC658162 and 20STCV00674 have been deemed related and are pending in D-31. See minute order relating cases, 1/27/20.

  3. Motion to Consolidate

    At this time, Plaintiff moves to consolidate BC658162 and 20STCV00674.

    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 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.)

    Consolidation is a procedure for uniting separate lawsuits for trial, where they involve common questions of law or fact and are pending in the same court. (See CCP §1048.) 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.)

    A consolidation of actions does not affect the rights of the parties. The purpose of consolidation is merely to promote trial convenience and economy by avoiding duplication of procedure, particularly in the proof of issues common to both actions. (See Estate of Baker (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 471, 485.) 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.)

    Landau v. Salam (1971) 4 Cal.3d 901, 903 supports the relief sought. Landau involved an April automobile accident and an August premises liability accident. The trial court in Landau granted the premises liability defendants’ motion to dismiss on grounds of misjoinder of the parties. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that a claim can be stated against two different sets of defendants so long as the plaintiff alleges (1) an injury, (2) negligence by successive tortfeasors, and (3) doubt as to which is liable, as required by CCP §379c. Of note, §379c was repealed and has been replaced by §379(c), which provides, “(c) Where the plaintiff is in doubt as to the person from whom he or she is entitled to redress, he or she may join two or more defendants, with the intent that the question as to which, if any, of the defendants is liable, and to what extent, may be determined between the parties.”

    In this case, Plaintiff has suffered substantial injuries, but he is in doubt concerning which of the defendants is liable to him for those injuries. Consolidation of the two actions is necessary to ensure these issues are properly determined. The Court finds the risk of inconsistent findings at trial outweighs Defendants, Watson and Seals’s claimed prejudice. The Court is aware that Watson and Seals will have to endure a continued trial date and the re-opening of discovery, but finds this prejudice is outweighed by the risk of inconsistent rulings if the cases are not consolidated.

  4. Trial Date

    BC658162 is currently set for trial on 9/14/20. 20STCV00674 is currently set for trial on 7/06/21. Plaintiff seeks an order vacating the trial date in BC658162. The Court vacates all trial dates in the two related (now consolidated) cases and sets the consolidated cases for trial one year from today’s date, Wednesday, 3/17/21 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse. The Court sets an FSC for Wednesday, 3/03/21 at 10:00 a.m. in D-31.

    Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

    Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If the parties do not submit on the tentative they should arrange to appear remotely.

Dated this 6th day of July, 2020

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC658162    Hearing Date: March 17, 2020    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MATTHEW AARON PICKART,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

MALCOLM S. WATSON, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: BC658162 (R/T 20STCV00674)

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

Dept. 31

1:30 p.m.

March 17, 2020

  1. Cases at Issue

    Plaintiff, Matthew Aaron Pickart has filed two lawsuits for damages arising out of three separate automobile accidents. BC658162 arises out of accidents that occurred on 4/30/15 and 1/06/16. 20STCV00674 arises out of a subsequent accident that occurred on 8/31/19. Plaintiff complains of overlapping injuries as a result of each of the three accidents.

  2. Related Cases

    BC658162 and 20STCV00674 have been deemed related and are pending in D-31. See minute order relating cases, 1/27/20.

  3. Motion to Consolidate

    At this time, Plaintiff moves to consolidate BC658162 and 20STCV00674.

    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 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.)

    Consolidation is a procedure for uniting separate lawsuits for trial, where they involve common questions of law or fact and are pending in the same court. (See CCP §1048.) 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.)

    A consolidation of actions does not affect the rights of the parties. The purpose of consolidation is merely to promote trial convenience and economy by avoiding duplication of procedure, particularly in the proof of issues common to both actions. (See Estate of Baker (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 471, 485.) 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.)

    Landau v. Salam (1971) 4 Cal.3d 901, 903 supports the relief sought. Landau involved an April automobile accident and an August premises liability accident. The trial court in Landau granted the premises liability defendants’ motion to dismiss on grounds of misjoinder of the parties. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that a claim can be stated against two different sets of defendants so long as the plaintiff alleges (1) an injury, (2) negligence by successive tortfeasors, and (3) doubt as to which is liable, as required by CCP §379c. Of note, §379c was repealed and has been replaced by §379(c), which provides, “(c) Where the plaintiff is in doubt as to the person from whom he or she is entitled to redress, he or she may join two or more defendants, with the intent that the question as to which, if any, of the defendants is liable, and to what extent, may be determined between the parties.”

    In this case, Plaintiff has suffered substantial injuries, but he is in doubt concerning which of the defendants is liable to him for those injuries. Consolidation of the two actions is necessary to ensure these issues are properly determined. The Court finds the risk of inconsistent findings at trial outweighs Defendants, Watson and Seals’s claimed prejudice. The Court is aware that Watson and Seals will have to endure a continued trial date and the re-opening of discovery, but finds this prejudice is outweighed by the risk of inconsistent rulings if the cases are not consolidated. Defendant expresses the concern that “Plaintiff will be involved in additional accidents such that Defendants may never get to trial if plaintiff continues to file additional personal injury lawsuits and seeks consolidation.” (Opp. at 2:28-3:2.) If, God forbid, Plaintiff is involved in additional accidents, the balance of hardships among the parties may change such that further consolidation may be inappropriate. But on the facts today, Plaintiff faces a risk of inconsistent adjudications that outweighs the hardships facing Defendant.

  4. Trial Date

    BC658162 is currently set for trial on 9/14/20. 20STCV00674 is currently set for trial on 7/06/21. Plaintiff seeks an order vacating the trial date in BC658162. The Court vacates all trial dates in the two related (now consolidated) cases and sets the consolidated cases for trial one year from today’s date, Wednesday, 3/17/21 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse. The Court sets an FSC for Wednesday, 3/03/21 at 10:00 a.m. in D-31.

    Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

    Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.

Dated this 17th day of March, 2020

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer NOVIK, ERICK