Verganza Chavez vs. Savant Construction, Inc.

Moving Defendant shall give notice of this ruling.

9 Hernandez vs. CMC Mathis Bros. Oklahoma LLC 10 Verganza TENTATIVE RULING: Chavez vs. Savant Motion to Consolidate Construction, Inc. For the reasons set forth below, the unopposed Motion to Consolidate brought by Defendant Savant Construction, Inc. is GRANTED, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1048, subdivision (a). The instant action (Verganza Chavez v. Savant Construction, Inc. et al., Case No. 2025-01481769) will be consolidated with Palomar Specialty Insurance Company v. Savant Construction, Inc. et al. (Case No. 2025-01491799), for all purposes. The instant action (Case No. 2025-01481769) will serve as the lead case.

Procedural Requirements for a Motion to Consolidate

Rule 3.350(a) of the California Rules of Court sets forth the requirements for a motion to consolidate:

(1) A notice of motion to consolidate must:

(A) List all named parties in each case, the names of those who have appeared, and the names of their respective attorneys of record; (B) Contain the captions of all the cases sought to be consolidated, with the lowest numbered case shown first; and (C) Be filed in each case sought to be consolidated.

(2) The motion to consolidate:

(A) 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; (B) Must be served on all attorneys of record and all nonrepresented parties in all of the cases sought to be consolidated; and (C) Must have a proof of service filed as part of the motion.

General Principles Re Consolidation of Cases

When there are actions involving common questions of law or fact pending, a court may order a joint trial of any or all of the matters in issue in the actions or may order all the actions consolidated, or such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1048(a).) The purpose of consolidation 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.). Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Proc. Before Trial, 12:340 (The Rutter Group 2012).

There are two types of consolidation, a complete consolidation which results in a single action and a consolidation of separate actions for trial. (Sanchez v. Superior Court (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 1391, 1396.) When cases are consolidated completely, which is usually ordered where the parties are identical and the causes could have been joined, the pleadings are considered merged, one set of findings is made, and one judgment is rendered. (Id.) When cases are consolidated for trial only, the pleadings, verdicts, findings and judgments are kept separate and the actions are simply tried together for the sake of convenience and judicial economy. (Id.)

The granting or denial of the motion to consolidate rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, and will not be reversed except upon a clear showing of abuse of discretion. (Todd-Stenberg v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 976, 978–79.)

Each case presents its own facts and circumstances, but the court will usually consider the following: (1) timeliness of the motion: i.e., whether granting consolidation would delay the trial of any of the cases involved, or whether discovery in one or more of the cases has proceeded without all parties present; (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 rights of any party. (Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Proc. Before Trial, 12:362.)

Merits

A review of the actions proposed for consolidation confirms that each arises from the same injury sustained by Hector Rolando Verganza Chavez on June 24, 2023, such that there are clearly common questions of law and fact. In both cases, a determination will be made as to

whether Defendants Savant Construction, Inc. and Central City Wrecking, Inc. are liable for the injuries sustained by Mr. Verganza Chavez. Given this central common question, consolidation serves the purpose of judicial efficiency.

Defendant is ordered to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.350(c), which states: “An order granting or denying all or part of a motion to consolidate must be filed in each case sought to be consolidated.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350(c).) Thereafter “any subsequent document must be filed only in the lead case.” (Ibid.)

Defendant to give notice.

11 Young vs. TENTATIVE RULING: Gunlei Corporation Motion to Vacate

Plaintiffs and Cross-Defendants William and Jennifer Young move to vacate the Court’s October 22, 2025, order entered in favor of Defendants and Cross-Complainants and striking JBY Enterprise, Inc. as an improper Cross-Defendant from the Cross-Complaint. For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED.

Plaintiffs seek to vacate or modify the Court’s minute order dated October 22, 2025. The October 22, 2025, order denied without prejudice Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend and granted Defendants and Cross-Complainants Gunlei Corporation, Egreen Transport Corporation, Hong Chen, Jing (Amy) Song, Yu Wang (Monica), Wen Chen, and Elaine Huang’ Motion to Strike Cross- Defendant JBY Enterprise, Inc.’s Answer to the Cross-Complaint.

Plaintiffs do not challenge the portion of the October 22, 2025, order relating to Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend. After all, they have subsequently been granted leave to amend and filed a Second Amended Complaint on April 23, 2026. (ROA 809.)

Instead, Plaintiffs claim that JBY Enterprise, Inc. has assigned all of its contractual rights, obligations, and liabilities to Plaintiffs individually. Thus, Plaintiffs contend that “the October 22, 2025, Order should be vacated under Code of Civil Procedure §473(d), and JBY Enterprise, Inc. should be stricken as an improperly named Cross Defendant pursuant to § 436(a) and §389(b).” (ROA 759.)

Code Civ. Proc. § 473(d) provides: