Aguilar v. Mobilitas Insurance Company, et al.

court may adjust the lodestar figure downward based on factors such as lack of success, inefficiency, or over-litigation (Gorman v. Tassajara Development Corp. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 44, 92). The lodestar figure is based on 68.2 hours at attorney hourly rates of $625 and $425. The Court, in the exercise of its discretion, will reduce the lodestar figure by 20% to account for the fact that Ash Reza's hourly rate is not reasonable and that 68.2 hours is an unreasonably large number of hours to bill for a case with zero docket activity.

There was an excessive amount of time spent reviewing GM's document production and preparing for a PMK deposition. The Court will not award a multiplier because, among other things, this was not a novel or complex matter. The Court will not award $2,500 for reviewing an opposition and drafting a reply; there was no opposition, and the amount billed for the instant Motion is more than sufficient. The Court will award the requested costs. In sum, the Motion is granted in part. The Court awards $20,947.20 in attorney fees and $797.70 in costs.

Moving party to give notice.

Ruling Judge Kevin C. Brazile Department 310 Hearing Date: August 18, 2026 Case Name: Aguilar v. Mobilitas Insurance Company, et al. Case No.: 26STCV18619 Matter: Petition to Consolidate Arbitrations Moving Party: Petitioner Wilfredo Aguilar Responding Party: Respondent United States Fire Insurance Company Notice: OK Ruling: The Petition is granted. Petitioner to give notice. The Court encourages all parties to appear remotely via LA CourtConnect. If submitting on the Court's tentative ruling, please follow the instructions provided above.

This matter stems from a motor vehicle collision occurring on December 19, 2023, while Petitioner Wilfredo Aguilar was operating a vehicle for rideshare services (Lyft). At the time of the collision, Petitioner was covered under two separate insurance policies relevant to this dispute: (a) an automobile insurance policy issued by Mobilitas Insurance Company providing Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist (UM/UIM) coverage pursuant to Insurance Code section 11580.2, and (b) an Occupational Accident Insurance (OAI) policy issued by United States Fire Insurance Company providing benefits for injuries sustained during rideshare operations. Both policies contain provisions requiring disputes over benefits to be resolved via binding arbitration.

Petitioner served demands for arbitration upon both carriers. Respondent Mobilitas does not oppose consolidation into a single proceeding. Respondent United States Fire Insurance Company opposes consolidation, contending that the contractual OAI claim and statutory UM/UIM claim involve distinct legal standards and policy terms and cannot be consolidated under Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.3. Petitioner now moves to consolidate the proceedings into a single joint arbitration to avoid procedural paralysis, conflicting allocations of responsibility, and unnecessary delay.

Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.3, a court may order consolidation of separate arbitration proceedings when: Separate arbitration agreements or proceedings exist between the same parties, or one party is a party to a separate arbitration agreement or proceeding with a third party; The disputes arise from the same transactions or series of related transactions; and There are common issues of law or fact creating the possibility of conflicting rulings by more than one arbitrator or panel of arbitrators.

The statutory requirements for consolidation are satisfied here. Petitioner is subject to binding arbitration agreements with both Mobilitas and United States Fire. Both claims arise entirely out of the exact same incident--the motor vehicle collision on December 19, 2023. The primary factual inquiry across both arbitrations is substantially identical: the nature, extent, and causation of Petitioner's personal injuries, medical necessity of treatment, medical expenses, and disability resulting from the crash.

Allowing these arbitrations to run on separate tracks poses a distinct threat of inconsistent or contradictory rulings. For example, one arbitrator could determine that certain treatment or special damages are unrelated or non-compensable under the OAI policy, while a separate arbitrator could independently allocate or credit those same amounts against the UM/UIM policy, leaving Petitioner with conflicting findings and incomplete recovery on identical medical evidence. Furthermore, because the extent of benefits payable under the OAI policy directly impacts the calculation of damages, credits, and offsets under Insurance Code section 11580.2, resolution of these overlapping obligations is best addressed in a coordinated proceeding.

United States Fire's contention that a statutory UM/UIM arbitration cannot be consolidated with a contractual OAI arbitration is unavailing. UM/UIM arbitrations under Insurance Code section 11580.2 are contractual arbitrations subject to the California Arbitration Act (Mercury Ins. Group v. Superior Court (1998) 19 Cal.4th 332, 342). CCP section 1281.3 does not require identity of policy types or identical substantive remedies; it requires common questions of fact or law arising from the same transaction. Consolidation does not alter or merge the substantive terms of either policy. Each insurer remains entitled to assert all applicable contractual defenses, statutory offsets, and exclusions before the appointed arbitrator.

Petitioner's Motion to Consolidate Arbitrations is granted. The parties are ordered to meet and confer within 14 days regarding the selection of an agreed-upon neutral arbitrator. If the parties are unable to agree, they shall proceed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.6. A Status Conference Re: Appointment of Arbitrator is set for September 8, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. 310 Petitioner to give notice. | Home -->)" -->