Monica Torres-Mendoza vs. Penske Truck Leasing Co.

“There are two types of consolidation: a complete consolidation resulting in a single action, and a consolidation of separate actions for trial. Under the former procedure, which may be utilized where the parties are identical and the causes could have been joined, the pleadings are regarded as merged, one set of findings is made, and one judgment is rendered. In a consolidation for trial,

34-2022-00324160-CU-PA-GDS: Monica Torres-Mendoza vs. Penske Truck Leasing Co. 03/29/2024 Hearing on Motion to Consolidate in Department 47

the pleadings, verdicts, findings and judgments are kept separate; the actions are simply tried together for the sake of convenience and judicial economy.” (Sanchez v. Superior Court (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 1391, 1396.) When actions are consolidated only for the purposes of trial, “the evidence presented in one case is to be deemed applicable in the other insofar as it is relevant thereto . . . .” (McClure v. Donovan (1949) 33 Cal.2d 717, 722.) If evidence is material in only one action, the jury may be instructed concerning the evidence that should be considered in each of the consolidated actions. (Johnson v. Western Air Express Corp. (1941) 45 Cal.App.2d 614.)

Where defendants are alleged to have committed separate and independent torts contributing to the same injuries, requiring plaintiff to proceed in separate actions may result in inefficient procedures, enhance the difficulties of proof, and may obstruct justice. (See Kraft v. Smith (1944) 24 Cal.2d 124, 129-130.) “If upon the trial it develops that neither defendant was guilty of negligence then no prejudice will have been occasioned by their joinder in the one action. If it develops that only one defendant was negligent in his treatment the assessment of the verdict will be simple.

If, on the other hand, it appears that negligence of both defendants contributed proximately to cause an injury for which plaintiff is entitled to recover, it may be a matter entailing great difficulty of proof as to the amount in which each defendant is responsible.” (Id. at p. 130.) “To require separate actions and separate trials in such a situation would enhance the difficulties of proof and tend to obstruct, rather than to promote, justice.” (Ibid.)

Here, if a jury determines the defendants in both actions are liable for and contributed to Plaintiffs’ injuries, then the jury will need to determine the respective comparative fault of each defendant. The defendants in the first action will likely seek to introduce evidence indicating the second accident was the primary cause of Plaintiff’s injuries, while the defendants in the second accident will likely seek to introduce evidence that Plaintiff’s injuries were pre-existing and caused by the defendants in the first action. Absent consolidation, there is a risk of inconsistent verdicts as to the comparative fault of the defendants.

The Court may properly consolidate the actions to avoid this risk of inconsistent verdicts. (Prudential Property & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (“Prudential”) (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 275.) Defendants’ efforts to distinguish Prudential on grounds it involved consolidation of an uninsured motorist arbitration is unavailing. As Plaintiff argues in reply, the holding in Prudential was not intended to restrict the power of the Court to consolidate cases involving separate motor vehicle accidents only when the proceedings to be consolidated include uninsured motorist arbitration. Rather, the court in Prudential, supra, 36 Cal.App.4th 275 held consolidation to avoid potentially conflicting rulings is appropriate even when one of the proceedings is an uninsured motorist arbitration.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00324160-CU-PA-GDS: Monica Torres-Mendoza vs. Penske Truck Leasing Co. 03/29/2024 Hearing on Motion to Consolidate in Department 47

The Court finds good cause for consolidation as the actions share common questions of law and fact as to what extent each of the accidents caused Plaintiff’s alleged back and neck injuries. Consolidation will promote judicial efficiency and economy and avoid the risk of inconsistent verdicts. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 1048(a).)

The motion is granted. Monica Torres-Mendoza v. Penske Truck Leasing Co., et al., Case No. 34-2022-00324160 shall be the lead case. The case management judge assigned to the lead case shall hear case management issues in the consolidated cases. The case management timelines applicable to the lead case shall govern all cases. Any hearings in actions other than the lead case are VACATED. The parties shall contact the law and motion department assigned to the lead case to reschedule the hearings for any pending law and motion matters.

This case has been assigned to Department 47 for hearing. In the event that either party requests a hearing the matter will be heard at 9:30 a.m. in Department 47. Any party requesting an oral argument must contact the clerk at (916) 874-5487 and opposing counsel or parties in pro per by 12:00 p.m. on the day before the hearing. If a proper request for hearing is not made, this shall become the order of the Court.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government Code section 68086 and California Rules of Court, rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list, Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk.

If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00324160-CU-PA-GDS: Monica Torres-Mendoza vs. Penske Truck Leasing Co. 03/29/2024 Hearing on Motion to Consolidate in Department 47

Office and an official reporter will be provided.