MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 12 Honorable Nahal Iravani-Sani, Presiding Courtroom Clerk, Ryan Nguyen 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 882-2230
DATE: 07/24/2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. and 9:01 A.M.
LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING LINE 1 19CV359049 Brandon Flora MOTION TO DISMISS ACTION vs Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC et al. Please Ctrl click (or scroll down to) Line 1 LINE 2 21CV376210 George Ku et al. MOTION TO DISQUALIFY PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL vs Harald Herchen Please Ctrl click (or scroll down to) Line 2 LINES 3-6 24CV453483 Shivan Verma vs Santa Motion: Compel Answers x 4 Clara Valley Transportation Authority Vacated by moving party LINE 7 24CV453851 Jason Stean MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS vs Associated Locating, Inc. et al Please Ctrl click (or scroll down to) Line 7 LINE 8 25CV471687 Berkshire Hathaway MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE Homestate Insurance Company vs Please Ctrl click (or scroll down to) Line 8 Andy Le LINE 9 25CV479556 Francisco Don DEMURRER Velasquez vs Allied Universal Please CTRL click (or scroll down to) Line 9 Security et al.
LINE 10 26CV497944 James Keene OSC TRO/Preliminary Injunction vs David Apt. Manager The parties are ordered to appear in person or remotely.
9:01 CASE # CASE TITLE RULING Line 1 24CV430720 Capital One N.a. vs Hearing: Claim of Exemption Mayra Mendoza At the last hearing, claimant was instructed to file supplemental documents. Claimant failed to do so. Accordingly, the claim of exemption is denied.
Plaintiff to prepare the final proposed order, accompanied by the necessary Form EFS-0202 within 7 days of the hearing
Calendar Line 8 Case Name: Berkshire Hathaway Homestate Insurance Company v. Andy Le Case No.: 25CV471687
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RELATE & CONSOLIDATE
No opposition received. Good cause appearing, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.
Discussion
This action arises from a motor vehicle collision that allegedly occurred on September 8, 2023. Plaintiff Berkshire Hathaway Homestate Companies ("BHHC"), the workers' compensation carrier for Plaintiff Camacho's employer, seeks recovery against Defendant Andy Le pursuant to Labor Code section 3852 for workers' compensation benefits paid and to be paid as a result of injuries allegedly caused by the collision.
Separately, Camacho filed a personal injury action against the same defendants arising from the same incident, Camacho v. Le, et al., Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 25CV472800. Both actions remain pending, discovery is ongoing, and no trial date has been set in either matter. No opposition to the present motion has been filed.
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?”
Labor Code section 3853 governs situations in which both an injured employee and the employer or workers' compensation carrier prosecute separate actions against the same thirdparty tortfeasor. The statute provides that where separate actions are brought before trial, they "shall" be consolidated. The purpose of the statute is to ensure that the respective rights of the employee and employer or carrier are adjudicated in a single proceeding, thereby avoiding multiple actions arising from the same injury and preventing inconsistent determinations concerning liability and damages.
The statutory prerequisites are satisfied here. BHHC and Camacho have filed separate actions against the same defendants arising from the same September 8, 2023 motor vehicle collision, and both actions remain pending before trial. Accordingly, consolidation is required under Labor Code section 3853.
Consolidation is also appropriate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1048. The two actions present common questions of law and fact, including the circumstances of the accident, Defendants' alleged negligence, comparative fault, causation, the extent to which the accident aggravated Plaintiff Camacho's preexisting injuries, and the damages attributable to the collision. Separate proceedings would require substantially duplicative discovery, witness testimony, and expert evidence, and would create an unnecessary risk of inconsistent findings on issues common to both cases. Consolidation will promote judicial economy and avoid unnecessary costs and delay. The Court finds no apparent prejudice to any party, particularly where discovery remains ongoing, no trial date has been set, and the motion is unopposed.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.
Order
1. This action is consolidated with Camacho v. Le, et al., Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 25CV472800, for all purposes pursuant to Labor Code section 3853 and, alternatively, Code of Civil Procedure section 1048.
2. The lower-numbered case, Case No. 25CV471687 shall be the lead 3. All future filings shall bear the lead case number and shall identify the consolidated actions in the caption.
Plaintiff to prepare the final proposed order, accompanied by the necessary Form EFS-020, within 7 days of the hearing.
- oo0oo -