Los Robles vs. Heritage Provider Network

Motions:

1. Defendant’s Motions to Continue Trial and Consolidate Cases 2. Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint

202100560112CUCO: Los Robles vs. Heritage Provider Network

Tentative Ruling:

1. Defendant’s Motions to Continue Trial and Consolidate Cases are DENIED. Defendants have not demonstrated that the matters should be consolidated or that the trial date should be continued given the close proximity to trial and the fact that this case was filed in 2021.

2. Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint is DENIED. The claims are permissive and the prejudice of allowing the cross-complaint to be added at this late stage far outweighs any efficiencies that would be gained. Permitting the filing of the cross- complaint would not serve the interests of justice.

DISCUSSION

I.

Legal Standard

A. Consolidation Code of Civil Procedure section 1048, subdivision (a) provides, in relevant part that “[w]hen actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court...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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048.)"" " Each case presents its own facts and circumstances, but the court generally considers the following: (1) timeliness of the motion (i.e., whether granting consolidation would delay the trial of any of the cases involved); (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). (See State Farm Mut.

Auto. Ins. Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1956) 47 Cal.2d 428, 430-431.)" " There are two types of consolidation under Section 1048: (1) a consolidation for purposes of trial only, where the two actions remain otherwise separate, and (2) a complete consolidation or consolidation for all purposes, where the two actions are merged into a single proceeding under one case number and result in only one verdict or set of findings and one judgment. (Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1127, 1147.) Consolidation under Section 1048 is permissive, and it is for the trial court to determine whether the consolidation is for all purposes or for trial only. (See Committee for Responsible Planning v.

City of Indian Wells (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 191, 196.)" " A consolidation of actions does not affect the rights of the parties. The purpose of consolidation is to avoid unnecessary costs or delay, avoid duplication of procedure, particularly in the proof of issues common to both actions, and avoid inconsistent results by hearing and deciding common issues together. (See Estate of Baker (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 471, 485.)" " Procedural Requirements” " “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

202100560112CUCO: Los Robles vs. Heritage Provider Network

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.” (Cal. Rules Ct., rule 3.350(a)(1).) “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 non-represented parties in all of the cases sought to be consolidated; and (C) Must have a proof of service filed as part of the motion.” (Cal. Rules Ct., rule 3.350(a)(2).)" " “Unless otherwise provided in the order granting the motion to consolidate, the lowest numbered case in the consolidated case is the lead case.” (Cal. Rules Ct., rule 3.350(b).)"

II. Application

The determination of whether to continue the trial date and/or consolidate the cases is entirely within the Court’s sound discretion. In addition, if the Court agreed to consolidate the cases, the trial date likely would undoubtedly need to be continued given that the second filed matter is far less developed that the present case.

Plaintiff demonstrates that there are only 27 overlapping claims out of the 1,179 between the two cases. The lead case was filed in 2021, and the five-year statutory deadline is a major concern if the trial date is continued. After weighing the factors in favor and against, the Court exercises its discretion to deny the motion for consolidation on the grounds before it.

B. Trial Continuance California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332 provides, in pertinent part:" (c) Grounds for continuance"" Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits. The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. Circumstances that may’indicate’good cause’include:"" (1) The unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;"" (2) The unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;"" (3) The unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;"" (4) The substitution of trial counsel, but only where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is’required’in the interests of justice;"" (5) The addition of a new party if:"" (A) The new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial; or"" (B) The other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial’in regard to’the new party's involvement in the case;"" (6) A party's excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or"" (7) A significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case’as a result of’which the case is not ready for trial.""

202100560112CUCO: Los Robles vs. Heritage Provider Network

(d) Other factors to be considered"" In ruling on a motion or application for continuance, the court must consider all the facts and circumstances that are relevant to the determination. These may include:"" (1) The proximity of the trial date;"" (2) Whether there was any’previous’continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party;"" (3) The length of the continuance requested;"" (4) The availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion or application for a continuance;"" (5) The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer’as a result of’the continuance;"" (6) If the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay;"" (7) The court's calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials;"" (8) Whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial;"" (9) Whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance;"" (10) Whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and"" (11) Any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application.""

Courts have inherent powers to insure the orderly administration of justice. "(See’Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 266.) "“A motion for a continuance is ... addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court.” "(Link v. Cater"(1998) 60 Cal.App.4th’1315, 1321.) """“’A trial court's exercise of discretion will be upheld if it is based on a “reasoned judgment” and’complies with’the '... legal principles and policies appropriate to the particular matter at issue.”"‘ [Citation].” (Color-Vue, Inc. v.

Abrams"(1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1603, citing’Bullis v. Security Pac. Nat. Bank"(1978) 21 Cal.3d 801, 815.) "“However,"‘”[t]he trial judge must exercise his discretion with due regard to all interests involved, and the refusal of a continuance which has the practical effect of denying the applicant a fair hearing is reversible error. [Citations.]”’ [Citation].” "(Oliveros v. County of Los Angeles (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1389, 1395, citing In re Marriage of Hoffmeister"(1984) 161 Cal.App.3d 1163, 1169.) ""

The Court is not persuaded that a continuance of the trial is warranted under the circumstances present here.

C. Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint

Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint is denied. The Court finds that the claims alleged in Defendant’s proposed Cross-Complaint do not arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions that form the basis of Plaintiff’s Complaint. Because the proposed claims are independent of Plaintiff’s primary claims, they are permissive rather than compulsory under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 426.10 and may be maintained in a separate action. Consequently, the mandatory relief provisions of Section 426.50 do not apply.

Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 428.50(c), permission to file a permissive cross-complaint may only be granted if it serves the "interest of justice." This action was filed on November 15,

202100560112CUCO: Los Robles vs. Heritage Provider Network

2021, and is nearly five years old. The trial in this matter is scheduled to commence on June 15, 2026, just weeks away. Allowing Defendant to inject entirely new, permissive claims into the litigation at this late stage would inevitably require reopening discovery, likely including new rounds of interrogatories, depositions and document demands. Delay of a trial that must proceed in a small window to avoid dismissal under the five-year statute (CCP § 583.310) would result in significant financial prejudice and administrative burden to the Plaintiff, who is entitled to a resolution of the operative complaint. Furthermore, it has been stipulated that the contention that the full billed charges represent the reasonable and customary rates for services provided is not a contention made by Heritage in connection with this case.

Accordingly, the Court finds that granting leave would defeat, rather than advance, the interest of justice. Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint is denied.

5