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.)