Case Number: BC576759 Hearing Date: July 21, 2016 Dept: 1

#2 – Fernandez, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al. (BC 576 759); Cardenas, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al. (BC 576 954); Sandoval v. Soriano, et al. (Orange County Superior Court case 30-2015-00779691)

On May 27, 2016, Defendant/Cross-Complainant/Cross-Defendant General Motors LLC filed a motion in personal injury Department 92 to transfer and consolidate Orange County Superior Court case 30-2015-00779691 with purportedly consolidated cases BC 576 759 and BC 576 954. On June 22, 2016 Judge Court in that department denied the motion without prejudice, noting that the matter instead needed to be determined by and noticed for hearing in this court. Judge Court also noted that the two Los Angeles County cases listed have been related but are not consolidated, and Judge Court ordered Defendant to give notice of the ruling.

Thereafter, the matter was scheduled for hearing in this court on this date. Notice of the above ruling and this current hearing was not filed and served as ordered by Judge Court. Although Defendant failed to comply with Judge Court’s order in this regard, the court finds there are no due process concerns in the court considering the motion at this time: all parties in all three cases were served with the motion for its original hearing date in Department 92, and no party opposed the motion. Accordingly, the court finds that it may consider the matter despite Defendant’s lack of service of notice of the rescheduled hearing date in this department.

Defendant argues all three cases stem from the same multiple-fatality crash involving a 2002 Chevrolet Astro van that was rear-ended by a 1999 Dodge Durango driven by Alfred Gomez on March 30, 2013 in Nevada, resulting in five fatalities and injury to the two survivors. Defendant argues the Orange County case should be transferred to Department 92 to be consolidated and heard with the other cases because all the cases involve common factual and legal questions, all allege strict liability and negligence against Defendant, and consolidating the cases will promote judicial economy and convenience to witnesses and will avoid potential for inconsistent rulings. The earliest-filed of the three cases is Los Angeles County case BC 576 759.

As noted above, no opposition has been received either for the originally scheduled hearing in Department 92 or for this hearing date.

LASC Local Rule 3.3(h) requires that coordination motions seeking to transfer non-complex cases to the Central District must be filed and heard in this court. Pursuant to CRC 3.300(h)(2), motions for coordination follow an assessment that the cases are related, in that the statute specifies that when related cases are pending in more than one superior court, the judge to whom the earliest filed case is assigned may confer informally with the purportedly related cases’ parties and judges to determine the propriety of informal or formal means of coordinating the proceedings; and if they should be formally coordinated, the CCP § 403 and CRC 3.500 procedures (for non-complex cases) or the CCP § 404 et seq. and CRC 3.501 et seq. procedures (for complex cases) of filing noticed motions for the relief must then be followed. CRC 3.300 (h)(2).

Here, via the above-noted minute order, Judge Court – to whom the earliest-filed of the three cases is assigned – has inferably delegated to this court the task of determining whether the Orange County case is related to the two Los Angeles County cases. The subject pleadings are submitted at Exhibits A, B, and D of the motion, and confirm that all three cases involve exactly the same motor vehicle incident and all involve common factual and legal questions, namely the culpability of Alfred Gomez and/or General Motors for the deaths of the five victims and injury to the two survivors, on theories of strict liability and negligence. Therefore, the three cases are related and formal coordination would be appropriate. Accordingly, the court considers the motion.

Initially, the court finds that cases BC 576 759 and BC 576 954, both already proceeding in Department 92, should be consolidated, with case BC 576 759 as the lead case. LASC Local Rule. 3.3(g).

The instant motion establishes that the three subject cases are not complex as defined by the Judicial Council; that the Defendant has made a good-faith effort to obtain agreement to the transfer from all parties to each action (Lewis Dec., ¶ 3 and Exh. A); and that notice was served on all parties to each action. Therefore, compliance with CCP § 403 and CRC 3.501 has been shown.

The court finds that the actions are not complex; that common questions of fact or law predominate and are significant to the litigation, and that convenience to the parties, witnesses, and counsel will be promoted if the cases are consolidated (the Orange County case’s plaintiff’s counsel in fact is located in El Monte in Los Angeles County, and no party has opposed the motion on this or any other basis). The court further finds that the three cases were filed within days of each other and thus are in the same relative stage of development; that consolidating the cases would promote efficient utilization of judicial facilities, staff resources, and the calendar of the courts; that there is a potential for duplicative and inconsistent rulings, orders, or judgments if the cases proceed separately; and that the likelihood of settlement may be promoted if the cases are consolidated rather than proceed separately. For these reasons, the court orders Orange County case 30-2015-00779691 transferred to this court to be heard with the other cases because this transfer would promote the ends of justice. CRC 3.510(d).

Accordingly, the court orders the Orange County case transferred and consolidated with cases BC 576 759 and BC 576 954. Case BC 576 759 is the lead case, and all future papers are to be filed only in that lead case. LASC Local Rule. 3.3(g).

The moving party is ordered to provide notice and take necessary action to complete the transfer and consolidation, as required by CRC 3.500(e) and (f).