Motion Types Legal Issues

What is a Motion to Consolidate/Join Cases?

Code of Civil Procedure, section 1048(a) grants discretion to the trial courts 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.

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.

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.

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).

Most Useful Motion to Consolidate/Join Cases Examples

Recent Examples of Motion to Consolidate/Join Cases

1-25 of 500 results

DAVID SAFAR VS REMON BALGJIAN, ET AL.

Safar v. Remon Balgjian, et al. MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE (CCP § 1048) TENTATIVE RULING Defendant Novel Hakobyan’s Motion to Consolidate is GRANTED. THE INSTANT ACTION REMAINS THE LEAD CASE AND ALL FUTURE FILINGS ARE TO BE UNDER THE LEAD CASE NUMBER. ANALYSIS: Plaintiff David Safar (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant actio...

...of Related Case with respect to Balgjian v. Hakobyan, LASC Case No. 19STLC00770 (“Case No. 19STLC00770”). The Court deemed the cases related on November 25, 2019. Defendant Hakobyan filed the instant Motion to Consolidate on December 26, 2019. To date, no opposition has been filed. Legal Standard Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.350, subdivision (a) states in relevant part: (1) A notice of motion to consol...

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

ANA DIAZ, ET AL. VS FRANKIE CHU

Motion to Consolidate Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. BACKGROUND In 19STCV16195, on November 9, 2019, Plaintiff Mauricio Pineda filed a complaint agai...

...apportionment, and declaratory relief. In 19STCV17263, on January 10, 2020, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Frankie Chu filed a notice or related case. In 19STCV17263, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Frankie Chu filed a motion to consolidate case number 19STCV17263 with case number 19STCV16195 pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1048. In 19STCV16195, trial is set for November 5, 2020. In 19STCV17263, tr...

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

VERDULT VS. KING

1. Motion to Consolidate filed by Defendant Rita A King: Defendant Rita A. King motion for an order transferring Orange County Superior Court case Eva Verdult v. Rita Ann King and Does 1-25, Case No. 30-2019-01070964-CU-PT-CJC (“Civil Matter”) to Department C06, and completely consolida...

...the First Verified Supplement to Petition for Instructions re: Validity of Trust and Order Confirming Validity of Trust filed in the Probate Matter. Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections to exhibits to the Motion are OVERRULED. Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections to Declaration of Samantha J. Morris are OVERRULED. Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections to Declaration of Rita Ann King Nos. 3 and 7 are SUSTAINED and ...

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

HERNANDEZ V. CLARK PACIFIC CORP.

...(Evid. Code, § 452; Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30, subd. (a).) Defendant Clark Pacific Corporation’s demurrer or alternatively, motion to consolidate is OVERRULED as to the demurrer and GRANTED as to the motion to consolidate. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.10, subd. (e), 1048.) The lead case will be CV CV 19-644. A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack...

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2020

MICHAEL ANTHONY QUINONES VS BENJAMIN ALLEN AVERY

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE (CCP § 1048) TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant Benjamin Allen Avery’s Motion to Consolidate is GRANTED. The instant action remains the lead case and all future filings are to be under the lead case number. ANALYSIS: Background On March 2, 2018, Plaintiff Michael Anthony Qui...

...deemed the instant action and the State Farm Action to be related cases. (8/8/19 Minute Order.) On September 4, 2019, the Court continued the hearing because Defendant Avery failed to file a notice of motion in the State Farm Action and because State Farm was not served with the instant Motion. (9/4/19 Minute Order.) The Court again continued the Motion on December 18, 2019 because Defendant Avery had fai...

  • Hearing

    Feb 19, 2020

ZAYAS V. HCR MANOR CARE SERVICES, LLC

Motion No. 1: Defendants’ (HCR Manor Care Services, LLC, Manor Care of Fountain Valley, CA, LLC, Heartland Employment Services, LLC, and Triet Keiu) Motion to Consolidate Actions (Motion), filed on 11-19-19 under ROA No. 164, is GRANTED. Code of Civil Procedure section 1048, subdivision (a), states, “When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court,...

...(b), and 1048, subdivision (a), the court GRANTS the court GRANTS Defendants’ (HCR Manor Care Services, LLC, Manor Care of Fountain Valley, CA, LLC, Heartland Employment Services, LLC, and Triet Keiu) Motion to Consolidate Actions filed on 11-19-19 under ROA No. 164. The wrongful death action arises out of the same conduct as the survival action. The lead case number is 30-2019-01061318. Defendants are to...

  • Hearing

    Feb 18, 2020

AMERICAN GRANDSTAND SEATING CO INC VS UNITED PROTECTION SERV

...Brown Responding Party: Unopposed Tentative Ruling: The Motion to Consolidate is granted. American Grandstand Seating, Co., Inc., Michael H. Brown, and Michael D. Brown seek consolidation of related cases nos. BC659602 and 19STCV06045. Code Civ. Proc. § 1048(a) provides, “[w]hen actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of an...

...Ex. A, p. 4:12-13; p. 7:1-2, 19-20.) Plaintiff in the Lead Action now seeks to enforce the settlement agreement. Good cause having been shown, cases nos. BC659602 and 19STCV06045 are consolidated. The Motion is granted.

  • Hearing

    Feb 18, 2020

HERNANDEZ V. CLARK PACIFIC CORP.

...(Evid. Code, § 452; Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30, subd. (a).) Defendant Clark Pacific Corporation’s demurrer or alternatively, motion to consolidate is OVERRULED as to the demurrer and GRANTED as to the motion to consolidate. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.10, subd. (e), 1048.) The lead case will be CV CV 19-644. A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack...

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2020

WRIGHT VS BANK OF AMERICA N.A.

Defendant Casas’s Motion to Stay Unlawful Detainer Case and to Consolidate Cases for Trial The court grants the Motion to Consolidate. In light of the ground that motion, the Motion to Stay is moot. Ordinarily the only triable issue in a UD proceeding is the right to possession, a...

...also pending before this court regarding the property, namely IOC vs. Wilmington Trust at al., Case No. 2018 – 10216698. That case has already been consolidated with the Wright case. Plaintiff Casas’ motion to consolidate the unlawful detainer action of Wilmington Trust v. Casas, Case No. 30-2019-010908749 with the unlimited civil action of Wright v. Bank of America, Case NO. 30-2011-00449059 is granted ...

  • Hearing

    Feb 14, 2020

XIAN TIAN (SIMON) MAI VS SILKROAD EXCLUSIVE, INC.

...over or make available for inspection certain corporate records, San Joaquin County Superior Court Case No. STK-CV-UWM-2019-12900. On October 28, 2019, the Court ordered the matter related to two other cases, San Joaquin County Superior Court Case Nos., STK-CV-UCC-2019-0013541 and STK-CV-UPCG-2019-0013658, which seek removal of Petitioner from his position as director of Silkroad Exclusive, Inc. and alleg...

... (See San Joaquin County Superior Court Case Nos., STK-CV-UCC-2019-0013541 and STK-CV-UPCG-2019-0013658.) On November 13, 2019, Petitioner filed his reply. On January 17, 2020, Respondent filed a motion to consolidate the writ proceeding with San Joaquin County Superior Court Case Nos., STK-CV-UCC-2019-0013541 and STK-CV-UPCG-2019-0013658. The parties do not dispute the consolidation of San Joaquin ...

  • Hearing

    Feb 14, 2020

BARD VS DENNIS

1. Plaintiff Bard, Burghardt, Cundall and Peterson’s Motion to Consolidate Cases for Trial 2. Status Conference

  • Hearing

    Feb 14, 2020

FREDERICK W STEPHENSON VS. NATHALIE FERN BELDEN

Defendant Russell W. Carlson ("Moving Party") filed this motion for an order consolidating cases and objecting to settlement. These are two distinct requests for relief that require separate motions and would be considered by separate departments. However, the motion requests consolidation as a p...

...the Court will treat the motion as a request for consolidation. The motion to consolidate is DENIED. Moving Party failed to comply with the requirements for a motion to consolidate. For example, the motion does not contain the caption of all cases to be consolidated and fails to identify the parties and their respective attorneys so that the Court may determine all parties in all cases have been properl...

  • Hearing

    Feb 13, 2020

SAPIR LEA MATZLIACH VS HUGO CASTRO

Motion to Consolidate Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. No opposing papers were filed. BACKGROUND In 19STCV14400, on April 25, 2019, Plaintiff Sapir Lea Matzliach filed a co...

...1048. On January 16, 2019, the Court deemed case number 19STCV14400 as related to case number 19STCV41414. In 19STCV14400, on January 21, 2020, the Court continued the hearing on Defendant Hugo Castro’s motion to consolidate to February 11, 2020. In 19STCV14400, trial is set for April 30, 2020. In 19STCV41414, trial is set for May 17, 2020. PARTY’S REQUEST Defendant Hugo Castro (“Moving Party”) asks the...

  • Hearing

    Feb 11, 2020

HARGROVE VS SAN DIEGO COUNTY CREDIT UNION

The Motion (ROA # 25) of Plaintiff Carleton Hargrove ("Plaintiff'), individually and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act, for an order compelling Defen...

...economy, the Court continues this hearing until after Judge Medel has ruled on the consolidation Motion in 37-2019-00015722-CU-OE-CTL. No further papers are authorized to be filed in connection with this Motion prior to the continued hearing on March 6, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Feb 10, 2020

HARGROVE VS SAN DIEGO COUNTY CREDIT UNION

The Motion (ROA # 25) of Plaintiff Carleton Hargrove ("Plaintiff'), individually and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act, for an order compelling Defen...

...economy, the Court continues this hearing until after Judge Medel has ruled on the consolidation Motion in 37-2019-00015722-CU-OE-CTL. No further papers are authorized to be filed in connection with this Motion prior to the continued hearing on March 6, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Feb 10, 2020

JILL JENKINS VS DAVID O. MARLOW, ET AL.

Motion to Consolidate Having considered the moving and opposing papers, the Court rules as follows. No reply papers were filed. BACKGROUND In 18STCV09795, on December 21, 2018, Plaintiff Jill Jenkins file...

...dismissed Defendant The Hertz Corporation dba Rental Car Finance Corp. without prejudice. In 18STCV09795, on January 2, 2020, Defendants/Cross-Defendants David Marlow and David O. Marlow, Inc. filed a motion to consolidate case number 18STCV09795 with case number 19STCV00218 pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1048. In 18STCV09795, trial is set for June 19, 2020. In 19STCV00218, trial...

  • Hearing

    Feb 7, 2020

MICHAEL BURNS, AN INDIVIDUAL VS CITY OF SANTA MONICA, A PUBLIC ENTITY , ET AL.

Defendant County of Los Angeles’s Motion to Consolidate is GRANTED. Defendant to provide notice. MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE “When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may o...

...discretion. (Todd-Stenberg v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust (48 Cal.App.4th 976, 978–79.) County moves to consolidate this case with the related case, 19STCV35515, County of Los Angeles v. Sina Mardani. (Motion at p. 2.) While this case concerns the County’s alleged negligence in failing to maintain a sewer mainline that caused an overflow in February 2018, the 19STCV35515 case concerns the same incident, bu...

  • Hearing

    Feb 6, 2020

THERESA ARNOLD, MS. VS SHELLEY LYNNE SPIEGEL, MS., ET AL.

...STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT THERESA ARNOLD, Plaintiff(s), vs. SHELLEY LYNNE SPIEGEL, ET AL., Defendant(s). CASE NO: 19STCV17567 [TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE Dept. 31 1:30 p.m. February 6, 2020 1. Background Facts Plaintiff, Theresa Arnold filed this action against Defendants, Shelley Lynne Spiegel and Juan Gonzalez for damages arising ...

...automobile accident that gives rise to this action. Because Gonzalez is uninsured, Plaintiff made a claim with Allstate; Allstate denies coverage, contending Gonzalez was not at fault for the accident. 2. Motion to Consolidate At this time, Plaintiff moves to consolidate the civil action with the UIM action. CCP §1281.2 provides: The court shall order the petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate the contr...

  • Hearing

    Feb 6, 2020

CALIFORNIA JOINT POWERS INSURANCE AUTHORITY VS GASTON RAGAZZ

...Ragazz Motion by Defendant, Gaston Ragazzo, to Consolidate Two Related Matters and Adopt Trial Date Set in Related Case is GRANTED in part and denied in part. The motion to consolidate is granted; the motion to set the trial date as 5/7/2020 is denied. The trial date is the trial date in the lead case, 5/18/2020. On 9/9/19, the Court deemed BC706237 related to 18STCV04303. Case No. BC706237 was designate...

...seeks consolidation of the cases. The decision to consolidate is a matter for the court’s discretion. Muller v. Robinson (1959) 174 Cal. App. 2d 511, 515. Consolidation is appropriate here since both cases arise from the same accident, involve substantially the same parties, and common questions of law or fact are pending. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1048(a).

  • Hearing

    Feb 6, 2020

RAMOS V. AT&T MOBILITY SERVICES, LLC

...clearly related to Isabel Ramos vs. AT&T Mobility Wireless Operations Holdings Inc., OCSC Case # 2019-01114431 (The Hon. Linda Marks, in Dept. C10) (“Ramos I”). As with consolidation, the rule about related cases is established to promote judicial economy as well as economy for the parties. (See Cal. Rule of Court 3.300(a)(1),(2) and (4) and Petersen v. Bank of America Corp. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 238, 248 (“C...

...single, centrally managed proceeding . . . The affinity for economies of scale manifests . . . in a number of other procedural contexts. These include the … rules of court requiring designation of related cases to avoid ‘substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges.”).) In addition, the claims within Ramos I and Ramos II could well have been brought in a single complaint filed b...

  • Hearing

    Feb 6, 2020

CAROL ANN HOWARD AS TRUSTEE OF THE ANDREW MILLS TRUST VS ALBENCE & ASSOCIATES APC

Plaintiff Carol Ann Howard's Motion to Consolidate Cases is DENIED. (ROA 97.) The court does not believe consolidation of this action with the probate case is appropriate.

  • Hearing

    Feb 6, 2020

MATTHEW ROBERT HORNER ET AL VS ARMANDO RODRIGUEZ BANDA ET AL

Motion to Consolidate Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. No opposing papers were filed. BACKGROUND In BC722801, on September 20, 2018, Plaintiffs Matthew Robert Horner and Li...

...number BC722801 as related to case number BC723467. In BC722801, on January 2, 2020, Defendants Moon Valley Nursery Inc. dba Moon Mountain Farms LLC, Armando Rodriguez Banda, and Leslie W. Blake filed a motion to consolidate case number BC722801 with case number BC723467 pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1048. In both BC722801 and BC723467, trial is set for July 27, 2020. PARTY’S REQU...

  • Hearing

    Feb 5, 2020

TIFFANY RIVERS VS RODRIGO ERNESTO HENRIQUEZ

...AL., Defendant(s). CASE NO: BC718957 [TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE Dept. 31 1:30 p.m. February 4, 2020 BC718957, BC718958, and 18STSC09724 all arise out of the same accident. The cases have previously been deemed related, and are all pending in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse. At this time, the Defendant moves to consolidate the two actions for all purposes. CCP §1048...

...485.) 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 ...

  • Hearing

    Feb 4, 2020

SINDY BUFORD VS. MATHESON TRUCKING INC

The motion of Defendants Matheson Trucking, Inc.; Matheson Flight Extenders, Inc.; Matheson Mail Transportation, Inc.; Matheson Postal Services, Inc.; and Shirley Curran (collectively "Defendants") to consolidat...

...the lead case. The case management judge assigned to the lead case shall hear case management issues in the consolidated cases. The case management timelines applicable to the lead case shall govern all cases. These actions involve claims arising from the alleged wrongful termination of Ms. Buford and Plaintiff Gary Vorce ("Mr. Vorce") in retaliation for whistleblower activities. Ms. Buford was employed as...

  • Hearing

    Feb 4, 2020

GARY VORCE VS. MATHESON TRUCKING INC

The motion of Defendants to continue trial is DENIED as moot. The Court anticipates granting a motion to consolidate this action with Sindy Buford v. Matheson Trucking, Inc., et al., Case No. 34-2018-00226011) (the "Buford Action"). As the Buford action will be the lead case, the case timelines in the...

  • Hearing

    Feb 4, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 20     last » 

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