Motion to Consolidate
25CV124257: MAGTIBAY vs ZEPEDA'S TRUCKING LLC, et al. 07/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Consolidate filed by ZEPEDA'S TRUCKING LLC (Defendant) + CRS# 136630555727 in Department 520
Tentative Ruling - 07/07/2026 Jamilah A. Jefferson
The Motion to Consolidate filed by SAMUEL CORNEJOMOZ, ZEPEDA'S TRUCKING LLC on 05/18/2026 is Granted.
The Motion to Consolidate is GRANTED.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial courts may consolidate actions involving common questions of law or fact. (CCP sec. 1048.) Consolidating actions does not affect the rights of the parties.
Consolidation's purpose is to avoid unnecessary costs or delay, avoid procedural duplication, particularly in proof or issues common to both actions, and avoid inconsistent results by hearing and deciding common issues together. (Estate of Baker (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 471, 485.) Deciding a motion to consolidate rests in the trial court's sounds discretion. (Feliner v. Steinbaum (1955) 132 Cal.App.2d 509, 511.) Each case presents its own facts and circumstances, but trial courts generally consider timeliness, complexity, and prejudice. (State Farm Mut.
Auto. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1956) 47 Cal.2d 428, 430-31.) In deciding a motion consolidate, a court should weigh whether the common issues predominate over the individual issues and whether any risks of jury confusion or prejudice to the parties outweigh reducing time and expense that would result from the consolidation. (Todd-Stenberg v. Shield (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 976, 978.)
Although Plaintiff Patricia Chavez argues that there is a likelihood of confusion, the Court disagrees. It appears that the arguments and presentation of evidence regarding liability will be the same or very similar - despite the additional related claims regarding the Defendant Samuel M. Cornejo's employment. The Court also disagrees that trying the issue of damages jointly will confuse the jury in this case - or prejudice either party such that consolidation would be unwarranted.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
NOTICE: This tentative ruling will automatically become the courts final order on July 10, 2026 unless, by no later than 4:00 P.M. on July 9, 2026, a party to the action notifies BOTH: 1) the court by emailing Dept520@alameda.courts.ca.gov; AND 2) all opposing counsel or selfrepresented parties (by telephone or email) that the party is contesting this tentative ruling.
The subject line (RE:) of the email must state: Request for CONTESTED HEARING: [the case name], [number]. When a party emails to contest a tentative ruling, the party must identify the specific holding(s) within the ruling they wish to contest via oral argument. 25CV124257: MAGTIBAY vs ZEPEDA'S TRUCKING LLC, et al. 07/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Consolidate filed by ZEPEDA'S TRUCKING LLC (Defendant) + CRS# 136630555727 in Department 520
The court does not provide court reporters for hearings in civil departments. A party who wants a record of the proceedings must engage a private court reporter. (Local Rule 3.95.) Any privately retained court reporter must also participate via video conference. Their email must be provided to the court at the time the Notice of Contest is emailed.
ALL CONTESTED LAW AND MOTION HEARINGS ARE CONDUCTED VIA REMOTE VIDEO unless an in person appearance is required by the court. Invitations to participate in the video proceeding will be sent by the court upon receipt of timely notice of contest. A party may give email notice that they will appear in court in person for the hearing, however all other counsel/parties and the JUDGE MAY APPEAR REMOTELY.