Case Number: BC643554 Hearing Date: March 19, 2018 Dept: 32

pablo ramirez, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Nissan Motor Co., LTD, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC643554

Hearing Date: March 19, 2018

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

Motion to Consolidate

BACKGROUND

This is a products liability and negligence action. Plaintiff Pablo Ramirez (“Plaintiff”) suffered injuries in a car accident on August 2, 2016 while driving a 2007 Infinity G35 (“Subject Vehicle”). Plaintiff alleges that the Subject Vehicle’s safety features failed to engage during the accident. Plaintiff asserts claims against the Subject vehicle’s manufacturers (“Nissan”), and the driver of the other vehicle in the accident.

DISCUSSION

“When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; 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.” (CCP § 1048(a).)

Nissan moves to consolidate this action (BC643554) with a related action (BC660808) on the grounds that the cases arise out of the same automobile accident and involve the same questions of law and fact. Plaintiff Pablo Ramirez, and Plaintiff in the related action, Concepcion Torres, oppose the motion. Plaintiffs in the related action, Isabel Gutierrez and Lynerry Henning filed an opposition in the related action (BC660808). Plaintiffs oppose the motion on the grounds that the two cases involve separate product liability claims against two different car manufacturers. However, the Court finds that the overlap in the two cases far outweighs the separateness of the product liability claims. The comparative fault on the part of the drivers of the subject vehicles is a central issue in both cases. Without consolidation, there is a potential for inconsistent findings on this issue. Furthermore, the two cases involve the same transaction or occurrence and the same individual parties. Any concerns regarding potential confusion due to the two separate products liabilities claims can be addressed by way of bifurcation.

Based on the forgoing, the motion to consolidate is GRANTED.