Finley Mathieu vs Carin Craig, MD et al

Case Number

22CV00092

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 05/02/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

CMC; Motion for Consolidation

Tentative Ruling

For all reasons discussed herein, the motion of plaintiff Finley Mathieu to consolidate case No. 24CV06198 with case No. 22CV00092 is granted. Case No. 22CV00092 is designated as the lead case. Plaintiff is ordered to prepare a formal order and file and serve the order in each of the consolidated cases.

Background:

On January 10, 2022, plaintiff Finley Mathieu (Mathieu), a minor by and through his guardian ad litem Sarka Holeckova (Holeckova), filed a complaint in this action against defendants Carin Craig, M.D. (Dr. Craig), Sansum Clinic, and Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital (Cottage Hospital) (collectively, defendants), alleging one causes of action labeled medical malpractice negligence. (Compl., ¶ 10(f) & p. 4.) In the complaint, Mathieu alleges that defendants failed to monitor, observe, control, and evaluate Mathieu during and after his birth and delivery on November 22, 2019. (Id. at ¶ GN-1.) Mathieu further alleges that, as a result, he suffered substantial pain, suffering, and permanent impairment. (Ibid.)

On February 24, 2022, Cottage Hospital filed its answer to the complaint generally denying its allegations and asserting nine affirmative defenses.

On March 11, 2022, Dr. Craig and Sansum Clinic filed their respective answers to the complaint, each generally denying its allegations and asserting twenty-two affirmative defenses.

On February 28, 2023, Mathieu filed a request for dismissal of the complaint as to Cottage Hospital only, without prejudice.

On March 17, 2023, Mathieu filed an amendment to the complaint substituting Alejandro R. Soffici, M.D. (Dr. Soffici) for the fictitious name Doe 1. Dr. Soffici filed an answer to the complaint on May 31, 2023, generally denying its allegations and asserting thirteen affirmative defenses.

On November 1, 2024, Mathieu, a minor by and through his guardian ad litem Holeckova, filed a complaint in Case No. 24CV06198 against defendants Sansum Clinic, Sansum Santa Barbara Medical Group Santa Barbara, Cottage Hospital, Sutter Health, and Sutter Health Greater Central Coast, for Medical Malpractice arising from the same events as alleged in Case No. 22CV00092.

On March 18, 2025, Case No. 22CV00092 was ordered related to Case No. 24CV06198.

Mathieu now moves to consolidate the two actions for all purposes. The motion is unopposed.

Analysis:
 

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a).)

“Consolidation under section 1048 is permissive, and the trial court granting consolidation must determine whether the consolidation will be for all purposes or will be limited.” (Committee for Responsible Planning v. City of Indian Wells (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 191, 196, fn. 5.)

“Under the statute and the case law, there are thus two types of consolidation: a consolidation for purposes of trial only, where the two actions remain otherwise separate; and a complete consolidation or consolidation for all purposes, where the two actions are merged into a single proceeding under one case number and result in only one verdict or set of findings and one judgment.” (Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1127, 1147.) “Consolidation under Code of Civil Procedure section 1048 is permissive, and it is for the trial court to determine whether the consolidation is for all purposes or for trial only.” (Id. at p. 1149.)

California Rules of Court, rule 3.350 provides:

“(a) Requirements of motion

“(1) A notice of motion to consolidate must:

“(A) List all named parties in each case, the names of those who have appeared, and the names of their respective attorneys of record;

“(B) Contain the captions of all the cases sought to be consolidated, with the lowest numbered case shown first; and

“(C) Be filed in each case sought to be consolidated.

“(2) The motion to consolidate:

“(A) Is deemed a single motion for the purpose of determining the appropriate filing fee, but memorandums, declarations, and other supporting papers must be filed only in the lowest numbered case;

“(B) Must be served on all attorneys of record and all nonrepresented parties in all of the cases sought to be consolidated; and

“(C) Must have a proof of service filed as part of the motion.

“(b) Lead case

Unless otherwise provided in the order granting the motion to consolidate, the lowest numbered case in the consolidated case is the lead case.

“(c) Order

An order granting or denying all or part of a motion to consolidate must be filed in each case sought to be consolidated. If the motion is granted for all purposes including trial, any subsequent document must be filed only in the lead case.

“(d) Caption and case number

All documents filed in the consolidated case must include the caption and case number of the lead case, followed by the case numbers of all of the other consolidated cases.”

Mathieu has complied with all of the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.350.

The court finds that the cases Mathieu seeks to consolidate involve common questions of law and facts. Consolidation of the cases will avoid the possibility of contradictory rulings, promote judicial economy, and result in a single judgment relative to the allegations of the two complaints.

The motion will be granted. Case No. 22CV00092 will be designated as the lead case.