MOSBY VS. BRENT, ET AL.

CASE NUMBER: 25CV-0209356 Tentative Ruling on Motion to Consolidate: Plaintiffs Todd Lawheed and Amanda Mosby in Case No. 206140 and Plaintiff Amanda Mosby in Case No. 209356 move to consolidate the two matters for all purposes pursuant to CCP § 1048. Defendant Carol Fulk was properly served in 206140. “Where a defendant has not appeared, 8

service of notice or papers need not be made upon the defendant.” CCP § 1048. Neither Defendant has appeared in 209356, however it appears that Defendant Fulk will be represented by the same counsel as in 206140 and Plaintiffs provided a courtesy copy of the motion to Defendant Dennis L. Brent’s counsel. Therefore, the motion was properly noticed. Neither Defendant filed an Opposition.

Merits. Motions to consolidate have certain pleading requirements that are described in CRC 3.350. Plaintiffs have complied with the requirements set forth in CRC 3.350.

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 order all the actions consolidated and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay. CCP § 1048(a).

Consolidation is appropriate where economy and convenience would be served by having the matters consolidated. The purpose of uniting separate lawsuits 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.

The two cases here stem from the same piece of real property. The two matters present common questions of law and fact and it appears that consolidating the matters is in the interest of judicial economy. No issues of prejudice have been raised and, despite being properly noticed, no party opposed the motion.