What is a Motion to Consolidate/Join Cases?

The trial courts have discretion to consolidate actions involving common questions of law or fact and are pending in the same court. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1048(a).)

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.)

How to Structure the Motion

There are two types of consolidation under Section 1048:

  1. a consolidation for purposes of trial only, where the two actions remain otherwise separate, and
  2. a complete consolidation or consolidation for all purposes, where the two actions are merged into a single proceeding under one case number and result in only one verdict or set of findings and one judgment.

(Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1127, 1147.)

California Rules of Court sets forth special rules which apply to motions seeking consolidation. A notice of motion to consolidate must:

  1. List all named parties in each case, the names of those who have appeared, and the names of their respective attorneys of record;
  2. Contain the captions of all the cases sought to be consolidated, with the lowest numbered case shown first; and
  3. Be filed in each case sought to be consolidated.

(Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.350(a)(1).)

Additionally, a motion to consolidate:

  1. 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;
  2. Must be served on all attorneys of record and all non-represented parties in all of the cases sought to be consolidated; and
  3. Must have a proof of service filed as part of the motion.

(Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.350(a)(2).)

The Court’s Decision

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; Nat’l Elec. Supply Co. v. Mt. Diablo Unified Sch. Dist. (1960) 187 Cal. App. 2d 418, 421.) “[I]t is possible that actions may be thoroughly ‘related’ in the sense of having common questions of law or fact, and still not be ‘consolidated,’ if the trial court, in the sound exercise of its discretion, chooses not to do so.” (Askew v. Askew (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 942, 964.)

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.)

Useful Rulings on Motion to Consolidate/Join Cases

Recent Rulings on Motion to Consolidate/Join Cases

BUCIUMAN V. PIVODA

Although Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate complies with the first two requirements, Plaintiff did not file the Notice of Motion to Consolidate in both this action and the unlawful detainer action, as required by CRC 3.350(a)(1)(C).

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

SARAY ROMERO VAZQUEZ ET AL VS HUNTER WAYNE LASSOS ET AL

For these reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate is DENIED without prejudice to renewal after all parties have appeared. Conclusion Plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

HELIX ELECTRIC VS. SCM CONSTRUCTION

HEARING ON MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE FILED BY SHAPELL DEER CREEK, LLC * TENTATIVE RULING: * Defendant Shappell moves to consolidate several actions arising out of a construction project. Shappell’s reply refers to an objection filed by Shoreline Builders, but the Court has seen none. The motion is granted, but with one important caveat, which may or may not address Shoreline’s concerns.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

ANDREW MCGINNIS, ET AL. VS SAN MARINO GARDENS WELLNESS CENTER, LP

On July 17, 2020, the court granted a Motion to Consolidate filed in a case which had previously been deemed related to this case, and consolidated this case with three other cases brought by the same plaintiffs against other facilities which had cared for decedent.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

TORRES-GUILLEN VS. SANTA ANA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Defendant’s motion to consolidate actions. No opposition. Motion granted. O.C.S.C. Case No. 30-2019-01084970 is ordered consolidated with O.C.S.C. Case No. 30-2019-0108960 for all purposes. O.C.S.C. Case No. 30-2019-01084960 shall serve as lead case for all purposes. See, C.C.P. § 1048(a), Rule 3-350(b). All future documents shall be filed in the lead case. Moving party to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.

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.”

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ELIZABETH POLITO VS JOSHUA DOLAND, ET AL.

Accordingly, the Motion to consolidate is GRANTED. Moving party to give notice. Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at [email protected] indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Dated this 17th day of September 2020 Hon. Edward B. Moreton, Jr. Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

SERGIO QUIROZ VS KJ AMERICAN ENTERPRISE, INC.

Defendant’s Motion to Consolidate Two Matters is GRANTED. The court consolidates Case No. 19STCV00135 Quiroz v. KJ American Enterprises, Inc. with 19STCV00865 Hauling Solutions, Inc., et al v. KJ American Enterprise, Inc., et al. Case No. 19STCV00135 Quiroz v. KJ American Enterprises, Inc. is the lead matter. All documents in the consolidated cases are to be filed in that matter.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

VERGARA VS ANCHOR GENERAL INSURANCE AGENCY INC [E-FILE]

s Motion to Consolidate is DENIED, without prejudice, with the following qualification. The Court agrees with the moving parties that normally Labor Code violations and PAGA claims are brought together in one lawsuit. It appears to the Court that the questions of law and fact are the same to the extent that both cases seek remedies for violations of Labor Code (the remedies are different, but the underlying liability determination is the same).

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

SERGIO QUIROZ VS KJ AMERICAN ENTERPRISE, INC.

Defendant’s Motion to Consolidate Two Matters is GRANTED. The court consolidates Case No. 19STCV00135 Quiroz v. KJ American Enterprises, Inc. with 19STCV00865 Hauling Solutions, Inc., et al v. KJ American Enterprise, Inc., et al. Case No. 19STCV00135 Quiroz v. KJ American Enterprises, Inc. is the lead matter. All documents in the consolidated cases are to be filed in that matter.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

ELIZABETH POLITO VS DEBBY YUAN ET AL

Accordingly, the Motion to consolidate is GRANTED. Moving party to give notice. Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at [email protected] indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Dated this 17th day of September 2020 Hon. Edward B. Moreton, Jr. Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

SYED M. HAMMAD RIZVI, ET AL. VS DILIGENT LENDING, LLC, ET AL.

After hearing, Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant Vincente Cuevas, and Defendant/Cross-Complainant/Cross-Defendant KWC Realty Services, Inc.’s motion to consolidate is DENIED without prejudice. Cross-Defendants’ requests for judicial notice are granted. (Evid. Code §§ 452, 453.) Specially appearing third party Jesus Anthony Rubio’s requests for judicial notice of Exhibits 1-4 are granted. (Evid. Code §§ 452, 453.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

MARC A. LAROCQUE VS. CHRISTINE LAROCQUE FRANZ, ET AL

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate is CONTINUED.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CHARLTON ATWOOD VS. ALBERTO DIAZ-HERRERA

Moving Party failed to file the notice of motion to consolidate in each case to be consolidated. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a)(1)(C)). Moving Party failed to file the motion and supporting papers in the lowest numbered case. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a)(2)(A).) Moving party failed to provide notice of the modifications to Local Rule 1.06 for motions pending before the presiding judge.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

SYED M. HAMMAD RIZVI, ET AL. VS DILIGENT LENDING, LLC, ET AL.

Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant Vincente Cuevas, and Defendant/Cross-Complainant/Cross-Defendant KWC Realty Services, Inc.’s motion to consolidate is DENIED. Cross-Defendants’ requests for judicial notice are granted. (Evid. Code §§ 452, 453.) Specially appearing third party Jesus Anthony Rubio’s requests for judicial notice of Exhibits 1-4 are granted. (Evid. Code §§ 452, 453.) Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant Vincente Cuevas, and Defendant/Cross-Complainant/Cross-Defendant KWC Realty Services, Inc.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

REPUBLIC INDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA VS. WEST COAST ARBORISTS INC

Moving Party failed to file the amended notice of motion to consolidate in each case to be consolidated. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a)(1)(C)). Moving Party failed to list the names of all parties in each case, whether they have appeared, and the names of the respective attorneys of record in the amended notice of motion. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a)(1)(A)). Moving Party failed to file the motion and supporting papers in the lowest numbered case. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a)(2)(A).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

MADELINE SARIEI VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A GOVERNMENT ENTITY, ET AL.

CASE NO: 19STCV08776 and 20STCV17099 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASE NO. 19STCV08776 AND CASE NO. 20STCV17099 Dept. 31 1:30 p.m. September 14, 2020 Plaintiff, Madeline Sariei seeks an order consolidating 19STCV08776 with 20STCV17099, contending both actions arise out of the same alleged incident involving a trip and fall of Plaintiff at the same location.

  • Hearing

    Sep 14, 2020

ALBERT TOFANYAN VS ALBERTO LOPEZ CARBAJAL ET AL

Defendants’ Motion to Consolidate Related Action is GRANTED. The court consolidates Case Nos. BC710106, 19STCV18363, and 20STCV06667. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1048, subd. (a).) On September 4, 2020, Defendants’ counsel filed a declaration asking the court to consolidate additional cases that were not identified in the moving papers.

  • Hearing

    Sep 14, 2020

ALBERT TOFANYAN VS ALBERTO LOPEZ CARBAJAL ET AL

Defendants’ Motion to Consolidate Related Action is GRANTED. The court consolidates Case Nos. BC710106, 19STCV18363, and 20STCV06667. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1048, subd. (a).) On September 4, 2020, Defendants’ counsel filed a declaration asking the court to consolidate additional cases that were not identified in the moving papers.

  • Hearing

    Sep 14, 2020

CORTES V. GOODWIN

Goodwin Superior Court Case No. 19CECG01379 Motions: By Defendant Goodwin for Consolidation of Cases By Defendant Goodwin for Compulsory Joinder of Minors Stella Dorch, Scarlett Hammond, and Morgan Pouncil Tentative Ruling: To grant defendant Goodwin’s motion to consolidate the actions for all purposes. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048.) Cortes v. Goodwin, case number 18CECG01751, shall be the lead case. To deny defendant’s motion for compulsory joinder of the minors. (Code Civ. Proc., § 389.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 14, 2020

GOLDEN, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE VS. MEDPRO GROUP INC.

Defendant MedPro Group Inc.’s Motion to Consolidate is denied to the extent defendant seeks consolidation for all purposes. The motion is granted in part, such that the court deems the Borges vs. MedPro case, #2020-01134777, related to the Golden vs. MedPro case, #2018-01035776, within the meaning of CRC Rule 3.300(a), and the court orders the two cases consolidated for discovery purposes only. The Borges vs. MedPro case will be transferred to this department because this case was filed earlier.

  • Hearing

    Sep 04, 2020

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES VS CRYSTAL MARIE GRIEGO, ET AL.

.: 19STCV01058, related to 19STCV01978 Hearing Date: September 4, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: MOTION TO consolidate NOTICE Department #32 will be dark for motions. The parties are ordered to email the Court’s clerk at [email protected] to inform the clerk whether they are submitting on the Court’s tentative or whether they are requesting a hearing. If any party requests a hearing, one will be scheduled.

  • Hearing

    Sep 04, 2020

RUANE VS. CHORBAJIAN

First, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion to consolidate this action with the Probate Case. Second, the Court suspended Karen Ruane from her position as Co-Trustee of the Trust (the "suspension order"). The Trust Defendant demurred to the complaint under Code of Civil Procedure § 430.10(d) solely on the ground of defective or misjoinder of parties. The Court requested supplemental briefing by the parties to address the effect of Ms.

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2020

ARNOLD L. YOUNGBLOOD, ET AL. VS US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

Defendant Breckenridge Property Fund 2016, LLC’s application to expunge lis pendens and motion to consolidate are MOOT. Plaintiff Youngblood withdrew the notice of pendency of action recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder on August 12, 2020, and Defendant Breckenridge is no longer a party to this action.

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

MARGARET A. WILLIAMS VS SYLVIA L. HARMON

On July 1, 2020, Plaintiff filed this second Motion to Consolidate or to Order Joint Trial of Issues (“the second Motion to Consolidate”). Notice of the second Motion to Consolidate was served on the parties on July 20, 2020. To date, no opposition has been filed. Discussion On February 26, 2020, the Court deemed this action related to the Unlawful Detainer action.

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 211     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.