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

MATTHEW AARON PICKART VS MALCOLM S WATSON ET AL

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.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

CAGNEY ENTERPRISES, LLC VS. NARDONE

X-Complainant Sandro Nardone Motion to Consolidate (Related to #4)

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

NARDONE VS. ITAL PIZZA, INC.

PLT Sandro Nardone Motion to Consolidate (Related to No. 9) Plaintiff and Cross-Complainant Sandro Nardone’s (“Nardone”) unopposed motion for an order consolidating the following two cases and their related cross-actions is GRANTED: (1) Case No. 30-2019-01051149-CU-BC-CJC, Sandro Graziano Nardone vs. Ital. Pizza, LLC; Ital. Pizza, Inc.; Philip Fusco; Shokoufeh Fusco; Stephen Fusco; and Antonio Bevaqua (“Nardone Matter”). (2) Case No. 30-2016-00884748-CU-BT-CJC, Cagney Enterprises, LLC vs.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

HERNANDEZ VS. LEZER

HEARING ON MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES FILED BY BRUCE LEZER * TENTATIVE RULING: * Unopposed motion to consolidate C20-00548, filed by Maria Juarez Hernandez, into this case is granted. All future filings shall use case number C19-02697. The CMC set for 8:30 a.m. on July 28, 2020 is confirmed. Defense counsel shall notice both plaintiffs’ counsel. The CMC previously set in the C20 case is vacated.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

AUSCENCIO CARRILLO ET AL VS ANALEA PAULE 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.” (Super. Ct. L.A. County, Local Rules, rule 3.3(g)(1).) All cases are now pending in Department #32. The motion sets forth good causes for consolidation. Finally, there is no opposition to the motion. Therefore, the motion is granted.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

AUSCENCIO CARRILLO ET AL VS ANALEA PAULE 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.” (Super. Ct. L.A. County, Local Rules, rule 3.3(g)(1).) The first case—Gonzalez v. Paule, et al. (Super. Ct. L.A. County, 2018, No. 18STLC13920)—is pending in Department 25, and has not yet been related to this case. The second case—Negrete v. Paule, et al. (Super. Ct. L.A.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

PERFECTED ROSES LLC V. WESTERLAY ORCHIDS LP, ET AL.

On May 1, 2019, the Virginia court denied Perfected Roses’ motion for a preliminary injunction and granted Persoon’s motion to consolidate the two cases. Prior to that ruling, Perfected Roses had filed a motion for leave to amend its complaint and state causes of action against the Overgaag defendants relating to the alleged scheme to transfer Perfected Roses’ interest in Blanca Flor and strip its assets. Persoon opposed that motion, arguing that the proposed amended complaint failed to state a claim.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

BANK OF AMERICA, N,AR VS. KAREN S. CLINTON

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE e WITH CASE NUMBER CIV1901755 [DEFT] KAREN S, CLINTON RULING The pending motion was resolved by stipulation and order and therefore is ordered OFF CALENDAR. Parties must comply with Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 110(8) to contest the tentative decision. Parties who request oral argument are required to appear telephonically through the court’s vCourt System.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

ELIZABETH RICO ET AL VS ELYN M MIRANDA

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

    Jun 30, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

THE ESTATE OF SHIRLEY BRINSON ORNDORFF ET AL. VS TIMOTHY BECHTEL ET AL.

Motion to consolidate is granted. No opposition filed. Order to be provided for electronic signature and filing. 2.) Demurrer by Port City Operating. Good cause appearing therefore and no opposition filed, sustained without leave to amend. Order to be provided for electronic signature and filing. 3.) Motion to strike by Port City Operating is granted, good cause appearing therefore and no opposition filed. Order to be provided for electronic signature and filing.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

DANIEL MONROY ET AL VS AGAVNI TISHCHYAN ET AL

.: BC692900, related to 19STLC01372 Hearing Date: June 29, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: MOTION TO consolidate Defendant Agavni Tishchyan (“Defendant”) moves to consolidate this case with Safeway Insurance Company v. Monroy, et al. (Super. Ct. L.A. County, 2019, No. 19STLC01372) for all purposes. Per Local Rule 3.3, subdivision (g), “Cases may not be consolidated unless they are in the same department.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

LUXURY DINING GROUP LLP, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL. VS MICHAEL FORSYTH

Under California Rules of Court Rule 3.350(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 filing fee,

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ROBERT LIPKIN VS JOSE GUZMAN

Under California Rules of Court Rule 3.350(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 filing fee,

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MARGARET A. WILLIAMS VS SYLVIA L. HARMON

Based on the foregoing, the Motion to Consolidate is PLACED OFF CALENDAR. Court clerk to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

CYNTHIA ELLEN TORRES VS EZE CHRISTOPHER BLAINE, ET AL.

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.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

TECHNOLOGY INSURANCE COMPANY VS. DOES 1 TO 50

Rule 3.350(a) of the California Rules of Court requires, among other things, that the notice of motion to consolidate list all named parties in each case, the names of which have appeared and the names of their respective attorneys of record; and be filed in each case sought to be combined. Here, the Notice of Motion does not list of all parties in each case, and Plaintiff did not file the Notice of Motion in Bautista v. Torres (Case No. 30-2019-01051433).

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

THOMAS GALLAWAY CORPORATION VS. ANNIBALE

Motion to Consolidate filed by Plaintiff Thomas Gallaway Corporation The Motion to Consolidate by Plaintiff Thomas Gallaway Corp. dba Technologent is DENIED without prejudice. Pursuant to Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion, this instant motion is made and based upon Code of Civil Procedure § 1048(a) and Rules of Court, Rule 3.350.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

SHASHIKANT JOGANI VS HARESH JOGANI ET AL

BC564146 (‘Shailesh’)” filed their “Statement of Position Re Rajesh Jogani and Chetan Jogani's Motion to Consolidate Case Nos. BC290553 and BC564146” in BC290553 noting in their case caption that BC290553 was “Assigned for all purposes to Dept. 68, Hon., Judge Mark Mooney Presiding.” (RJN Ex. 4.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CREDIT CARD SERVICES INC VS JOE TEH CHUANG ET AL

And although CCSI argues in opposition that it believed its denied motion to consolidate was reasonably necessary, the court finds that the motion itself was not reasonably necessary, and the motion to tax is GRANTED as to that $60 filing fee.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

RYAN ROEHN VS MILLCREEK RESIDENTIAL TRUST, ET AL.

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS Date: 6/23/20 (3:30 PM) Case: Ryan Roehn v.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

HANSON V. GROSS

Motion to Consolidate The Motion by Plaintiff Esmeralda Hansen (“Plaintiff”) to stay two pending unlawful detainer cases and to consolidate them with this action for trial is denied. When there are actions involving common questions of law or fact pending, a court may order a joint trial of any or all of the matters in issue in the actions or may order all the actions consolidated, or may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay. Code Civ.

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

TABETHA AVILA ET AL. VS JOE AVIS FARMS LLC ET AL.

Motion to Consolidate Related Cases is granted. Order to be submitted to Court for electronic signature and filing.

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

RUANE VS. CHORBAJIAN

On February 27, 2020, the same date these matters were scheduled to be heard, a motion to consolidate this civil action into the probate case, a petition for instructions (the "Probate Matters"), and several other matters were also set for hearing before Judge George in the Probate Case. The Court continued the hearings in this action to April 9, 2020 pending the resolution of the Probate Matters and any other rulings in the Probate Case that may affect this case.

  • Hearing

    Jun 18, 2020

AMEZOLA VS. MURAOKA

California Rules of Court (“CRC”), Rule 3.350(a)(1) requires that the moving party to a motion to consolidate file a notice of motion in each case sought to be consolidated. In addition, CRC, Rule 3.350(a)(2) requires that the motion to consolidate be served on all attorneys of record and all non-represented parties in all of the cases sought to be consolidated. Here, the motion is procedurally defective and does not comply with CRC, Rule 3.350.

  • Hearing

    Jun 18, 2020

KEVIN PHAM VS. ANDRE DIXSON

Good cause appearing and based on the stipulation of the parties, the motion to consolidate Kevin Pham v. Andre Dixson, et al. (Case No. 34-2019-00260740) and Andre Dixson v. Kerry Viengvilai, et al. (Case No. 34-2019-00250374) is GRANTED. The request for judicial notice 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).)

  • Hearing

    Jun 02, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 205     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.