AMICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY VS. OAKLEY DESIGN BUILD RESTORATION, LLC ET AL

Matter on the LAW AND MOTION / DISCOVERY CALENDAR FOR THURSDAY, JUL-31-2025, LINE 7. PLAINTIFF AMICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY'S, A RHODE ISLAND CORPORATION, MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS OF CASE(S) CGC-23-607534 WITH CASE CGC-24-619330. ***PART ONE OF TWO***

Plaintiff Amica Mutual Insurance Company's unopposed Motion to Consolidate Case Number CGC-23-607534 with Case Number CGC-24-619330 is GRANTED IN PART. The two actions at issue are McGillan v. Rodriguez, Case No. CGC-23-607534 and Amica Mutual Insurance Company v. Oakley Design Build Restoration, LLC, Case No. CGC-24-619330. Both cases relate to the same contractor work performed at and damage to the same real property.

Plaintiff Amica moves to consolidate the actions under Code of Civil Procedure section 1048. Subdivision (a) of that section provides: "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."

When ruling on a motion to consolidate the court should consider the common issues of law and fact, timeliness (trial date/discovery), complexity of the cases, and prejudice to the parties. "There are two types of consolidation: a complete consolidation resulting in a single action, and a consolidation of separate actions for trial. Under the former procedure, which may be utilized where the parties are identical and the causes of action should have been joined, the pleadings are regarded as merged, one set of findings is made, and one judgment is rendered. In a consolidation for trial, the pleadings, verdicts, findings and judgments are kept separate; the actions are simply tried together for the sake of convenience and judicial economy." (Sanchez v. Superior Court (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 1391, 1396.)

Amica does not identify the type of consolidation it is seeking until, literally, the last four words of its memorandum. Consolidation into one action for all purposes is denied. Among other problems, the request comes too late. The parties failed to exercise reasonable diligence in pursuing all-purpose consolidation.

Plaintiff Amica, the only party now actively pursuing consolidation may not have been aware of the McGillan action at the time it filed its own action (though the McGillan's are Amica's policyholders, and the actions arise from the same basic set of facts), but surely Amica learned of-or certainly should have discovered-the McGillan action shortly after it initiated its own action. It could have promptly sought to intervene in the McGillan action, but it didn't. Instead, it waited nearly a year and until the eve of trial in the McGillan action to seek any type of consolidation, then sought only full merger of actions.