17-CIV-04936 JANE DOE #1 vs. MANUEL SEDILLO-MESSER, et al.

JANE DOE #1 Dek Ketchum

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO DAVID LEVY

CORBETT GROUP HOMES ARTHUR CURLEY

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff JANE DOE #1’s Motion to Consolidate is GRANTED pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 1048(a). Case No. CIV 534203 and Case No. 17-CIV-04936 are hereby consolidated; the lead case will be CIV 534203.

The main considerations when ruling on a motion to consolidate are: (1) complexity, i.e., whether joining the actions involved would make the trial too confusing or complex for a jury; (2) prejudice, i.e., whether consolidation would adversely affect the rights of any party; and (3) timeliness of the motion. Weil & Brown, supra, at § 12:363.

Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2’s cases clearly involve significant common issues of fact and law such that consolidation would tend to avoid unnecessary costs and delay. The County makes no strong argument in its opposition, even conceding that consolidation and discovery coordination would lead to cost and time savings. As for Defendant CORBETT, while it is true that this party is new to this matter and was not involved in Jane Doe #2’s ongoing case, there is no requirement that all of the parties need to be identical in both parties in order for consolidation to occur. Jud Whitehead Heater Co. v. Obler (1952) 111 Cal.App.2d 861, 867. Any possible confusion between the two group home Defendants at trial may be addressed by specific jury instructions. The prejudice to Corbett is far outweighed by the prejudice to the Plaintiffs if they should have to endure two separate trials on many of the same issues.

Furthermore, it appears that judicial economy and efficiency would be furthered if the cases were to be consolidated.