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

BRENDA JANETTE CHAVEZ , ET AL. VS RPL TRUCKING INC., ET AL.

Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.350, subdivision (a)(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

  • Hearing

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

The motion hearing date was continued for various reasons, including a pending motion to consolidate the two cases, the pandemic, and settlement discussions. At the October 15, 2020 hearing, Plaintiff argued that the law categorically prohibits consideration of the validity of a plaintiff’s title in an unlawful detainer action, regardless of the merits of Defendant’s wrongful foreclosure case.

  • Hearing

TAYLOR-MARTINO VS RYMAL

Motion to consolidate off calendar.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

BORECKY VS MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA

The motion to consolidate is ordered off-calendar because no moving papers were filed.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

CASSANDRA MARIE TRIVISANO VS RUPINDER SINGH JHALLI ET AL

On December 19, 2019, the Personal Injury Court granted a motion to consolidate these two cases. On January 28, 2020, the court transferred the case to this Court for all purposes except for trial. (See 1/28/2020 Minute order; see also 2/14/2020 Transfer order.) On April 21, 2020, Defendants Balreet Dyal and Ramandeep Dyal filed a motion for summary adjudication as to both complaints.

  • Hearing

WILSON PEREZ VS. JENNIFER JOAN THOMAS

Jennifer Joan Thomas' ("Moving Party") motion to consolidate fails to comply with the notice requirements and court rules. As it appears all parties have stipulated to the consolidation, the Court will continue the motion to permit Moving Parties an opportunity to correct the defects. Moving Party failed to file the notice of motion in all cases to be consolidated. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a)(1)(C).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

JENNIFER SOMMERFELD-CUMMINGS VS GIL TEPPER, M.D.

Accordingly, the unopposed Motion to consolidate is GRANTED. Case Nos. 19STCV000790 and 19STCV02116 are consolidated with Case No. 19STCV00790 deemed the lead case. 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 18th day of November 2020 Hon. Edward B. Moreton, Jr.

  • Hearing

ASHLEY CAO VS. ZACKARY KOLLROSS

The motion to consolidate Ashley Cao v. Zackary Kollross, et al. (Case No. 34-2019-00248206) and California Charter Schools Assoc. v. Christopher Katz, et al. (Case No. 34-2019-00250073) is GRANTED. The Court finds consolidation is appropriate because the cases involve common issues of law and fact as both actions relate to the same motor vehicle accident. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 1048(a).) Consolidation will promote judicial efficiency and economy and avoid the risk of inconsistent verdicts. Ashley Cao v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

JEFF J ESCHRICH VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS OVERSIGHT

This is the second motion to consolidate filed by Jeff J. Eschrich ("Moving Party") in this action. On July 10, 2020, the Court issued an order dropping the first motion from the calendar based on Moving Party's failure to comply with Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350 and Local Rule 1.06. Moving Party has again failed to comply with the above rules. Accordingly, the Court is again unable to rule on the merits of the motion.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

REBEKAH LYNN ROGERS ET AL VS STATER BROS MARKETS ET AL

Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.350, subdivision (a)(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

  • Hearing

HOLIDAY VS. RELATED CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL

Continued to a date to be determined pending ruling on Motion to Consolidate. Clerk to give notice.

  • Hearing

SANTIAGO PEREZ VS KYONG KIM

Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.350, subdivision (a)(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

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

KOR V. YEPIZ

Motion to Consolidate for Purposes of Trial Defendant Rafael Yepiz’s unopposed Motion to Consolidate is granted. The Court finds the actions involve common questions of law or fact, and a complete consolidation would enhance trial court efficiency and avoid inconsistent rulings. Code Civ. Proc. § 1048(a). The following actions shall be consolidated for all purposes. 1. Megan Kor v. Rafael Yepiz, case no. 30-2019-01085781; and 2. Erin Siess v. Rafael Yepiz, case no. 30-2019-01091170.

  • Hearing

CHRISTINA MAKAREM VS FELICIA COSTA

On October 16, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion to consolidate an underinsured motorist contractual arbitration with this action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2. A trial setting conference is scheduled for May 13, 2021.

  • Hearing

YAPHET HARRIS VS EUROPEAN AUTO OUTLET, INC., ET AL.

.: 18STCV09423 Hearing Date: November 13, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motion to consolidate cases Background A. Complaint Plaintiffs “Protection of the Holy Virgin,” the Russian Orthodox Church (Church) and Father Viktor Tseshkovsky (Tseshkovsky) (collectively, Plaintiffs) commenced this action against Our Church Building, Inc. (OCB) on December 24, 2018.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

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

On September 18, 2020, Judge Hofer granted Defendants’ motion to consolidate the three cases for all purposes and deemed 19STCV31842 the lead case.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

PAUL TORRES VS EDWIN TRUCKING, INC., ET AL.

Deciding a motion to consolidate rests in the trial court’s sounds discretion and will not be reversed except upon a clear abuse of discretion showing. (Feliner v. Steinbaum (1955) 132 Cal.App.2d 509, 511.)

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

KIMBERLY KIRCHMEYER DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

A review of the court file shows that a motion to consolidate this matter with two other pending matters is set for hearing on November 20, 2020 in Case No. 37-2019-00050091-CU-PT-CTL [ROA 57] in Department 75. The court continues the hearing on this petition to December 11, 2020 at 8:30am to allow for resolution of the pending consolidation/related case issues.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

DAVID G. BERTRAND, ET AL. V. JESSICA BERRY

“Absent a stipulation to consolidate, a noticed and written motion to consolidate is required.” Sutter Health Uninsured Pricing Cases, 171 Cal.App.4th 495, 514 (2009); CCP § 1048; CRC 3.350. (The court is not suggesting there are grounds for consolidation. The cases do not appear to have common questions of law or fact.)

  • Hearing

BU CHA KWON VS JAMIE CHUNG

Further, the motion to consolidate “[m]ust be served on all attorneys of record and all nonrepresented parties in all of the cases sought to be consolidated” and “[m]ust have a proof of service filed as part of the motion.” (Id. at 3.350(a)(2).) The motion to consolidate “[i]s 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….” (Id.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MYUNG Y KANG VS KI YOUNG NAM, ET AL.

Pursuant to the concurrent ruling on case No. 19STCV03767, the Defendants' motion to consolidate is granted as to Case No. 20STCV01284. Case No. 19STCV03767 is the lead case and all subsequent documents must be filed only in that case. (See California Rules of Court, rule 3.350(b) – (d).) Moving parties to give notice.

  • Hearing

JOHNATHAN RUSSO VS. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a)(1)(C), which expressly requires the notice of a motion to consolidate be filed in all cases to be consolidated. The Court continued the hearing to permit Moving Parties an opportunity to correct the defect in notice. The Court's November 6, 2020 order expressly directs Moving Parties to file an amended notice in all actions to be consolidated.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

HOMEBUDDY DIRECT, LLC VS. AMMAR JAWED, ET AL.

The Court will thus deny the instant motion. --- Motion to Consolidate – As the Court denies Jawed's motion to vacate default judgment, supra, the default judgment entered against Jawed persists and the Court will take off calendar the motion to consolidate.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JOSE ALEJANDRO SUASTE COLIN VS JOSE PADILLA BRAVO, ET AL.

In 19STCV15671, on June 26, 2020, Defendant Jose Padilla Bravo filed a motion to consolidate pursuant to case numbers 19STCV15671 and 19STCV40445 pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1048. In 19STCV15671, on June 29, 2020, the Court scheduled the motion to consolidate to be heard on November 5, 2020. In 19STCV15671, a trial setting conference is scheduled for November 5, 2020. In 19STCV40445, trial is set for May 7, 2021.

  • Hearing

PIZARRO VS EXECUTOR ADMINISTRATOR AND/OR TRUSTEE OF THE ESTATE OF TREVOR JAMES HEITMANN

Defendants Estate of Trevor James Heitmann, deceased; Kurt Heitmann, individually and as administrator of the Estate of Trevor James Heitmann; Bita Heitmann as the administrator of the Estate of Trevor James Heitmann; and TJH Holdings, LLC's motion to consolidate is GRANTED. The court finds the case titled Hector Puga and Ann Maria Carpenter v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 214     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.