Case Number: BC505748    Hearing Date: September 15, 2014    Dept: 92

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT

NADER RABI, ET AL.,
Plaintiff(s),
vs.

MARYLU EARLE, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

CASE NO: BC505748

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

Dept. 92
9/15/14
1:30 p.m. — #29

Defendant, the Estate of Marylu Earle’s Motion to Consolidate is Granted. BC505748, BC534518, BC541336, and BC542182 are deemed related and are consolidate for all purposes, with BC505748 designated as the lead case. All hearing dates in BC534518, BC541336, and BC542182 are advanced to today’s date and vacated. All future papers must be filed in BC505748 and all future hearings must be set in BC505748.

The 7/29/15 trial date in BC505748 remains on calendar; trial in the four consolidated actions is set for 7/29/15.

Defendant, the Estate of Marylu Earle, seeks to consolidate BC505748, BC534518, BC541336, and BC542182.

In BC505748, the plaintiffs are Nader Rabi, Nader Rabi, D.D.S., Inc., Azita Fakheri, and Azita Fakheri, M.D., Inc. The defendants are Maryle Earle (whose estate was subsequently substituted into the action) and Shabana Zarifi.

In BC534518, the plaintiff is Audra Naomi Carrasco. The defendants are Shabana Zarifi, Zarifa Zarifi, and the Estate of Marylu Earle.

In BC541336, the plaintiff is Krivash Sahraie. The defendants are the same as those in BC534518.

In BC542182, the plaintiff is Xochitl Saleh. The defendants are the same as those in BC534518.

All four actions arise out of the same automobile accident. As noted above, the Estate of Earl moves to consolidate the four actions. As an initial note, a notice of related cases is a prerequisite to consolidation, as the four cases are not pending in the same courtroom. See Local Rule 3.3(g). The Court herein finds the cases are clearly related, and therefore dispenses with the requirement of a notice of related cases and simply declares the cases related at this time, with the earliest-filed case, BC505748, deemed the lead case.

CCP ¿1048 grants discretion to the trial courts to consolidate actions involving common questions of law or fact. The trial court’s decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion. 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 action, and avoid inconsistent results by hearing and deciding common issues together. (See Estate of Baker (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 471, 485.) The granting or denial of a motion to consolidate rests in the trial court’s sound discretion, and will not be reversed except upon a clear showing of abuse of discretion. (Feliner v. Steinbaum (1955) 132 Cal.App.2d 509, 511.) 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. Superior Court (1956) 47 Cal.2d 428, 430–431.) In deciding whether to grant a motion to consolidate, the court should weigh whether the common issues predominate over the individual issues and whether any risks of jury confusion or prejudice to the parties outweighs the reduction in time and expense that would result from consolidation. (Todd-Stenberg v. Shield (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 976, 978.)

The Court finds these cases arise out of the same automobile accident, and therefore consolidate is clearly warranted. Notably, all parties to all actions have been served with the moving papers, and no party has filed opposition to the motion. The motion is therefore granted. BC505748, BC534518, BC541336, and BC542182 are consolidated. BC505748 is designated as the lead case. All hearing dates pending in BC534518, BC541336, and BC542182 are advanced to today’s date and vacated. The Court notes there are no pending motions in any of the cases, and therefore no motions need to be re-set. Any future motions must be filed in BC505748.

The Court notes that trial in BC505748 was recently continued from 10/20/14 to 7/29/15. The trial date (and related FSC date) remain on calendar; trial in all four consolidated cases is set for 7/29/15 at 8:30 a.m. in D-92. The FSC in all four consolidated cases is set for 7/15/15 at 10:00 a.m. in D-92.

Dated this 15th day of September, 2014

Hon. Elia Weinbach
Judge of the Superior Court