MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS OF CASE(S) CGC-23-610835, CGC-24-612232 WITH CASE CGC-25-622032
Matter on the Law & Motion / Discovery calendar for Wednesday, October 22, 2025, Line 4. PLAINTIFF SHALENDRA PRASAD's MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS OF CASE(S) CGC-23-610835, CGC-24-612232 WITH CASE CGC-25-622032.
This is an opposed motion to consolidate Prasad v. Bikwan Ip, et al., Case No. CGC-23-610835, with two earlier-filed actions that have already been consolidated: Huang v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. CGC-23-610835, and Liu v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. CGC-24-612232. A hearing is required.
Moving plaintiff Shalendra Prasad contends that this personal injury case should be consolidated because it arises out of the same motor vehicle accident at issue in Huang v. Uber and Liu v. Uber. Prasad was an Uber driver, and is a defendant in Huang v. Uber, a case brought by the survivors of one of the passengers in Prasad's car, and in Liu v. Uber, a case brought by the other passenger. The defendants in Prasad's case (Vincent Bikwan Ip, Omar Sanchez Ortiz, and Sanchez & Sons Transport LLC) are defendants in the Huang and Liu actions.
The Huang plaintiffs oppose consolidation because the damage claims are unrelated, and because there will be juror confusion surrounding Prasad's presence as a defendant in two actions and a plaintiff in the third action. The Huang plaintiffs raise the additional concern that significant discovery has already occurred in the older cases. Other parties do not oppose. Prasad has submitted no reply brief.
The court does not see any realistic prospect of juror confusion: jurors are often asked to apportion fault regardless of whether a party appears as a plaintiff or defendant. There are common facts and witnesses, and consolidation for all purposes would seem to promote judicial efficiency and obviate the risk of inconsistent adjudications. The court is inclined to order consolidation but requires a hearing to clarify (1) whether Prasad seeks consolidation for all purposes or for trial only; and (2) what discovery Prasad seeks and whether the Huang plaintiffs' concerns about duplicative discovery will be borne out.
For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 301 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 301 Zoom ID 161 502 4290; Passcode 700956.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.
Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept301tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept301tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.
The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion or Discovery Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(301/CVA) | |