Sample Motion to Consolidate Cases in California: Rule 3.350 Packet

A motion to consolidate cases in California is filed under Code of Civil Procedure section 1048 and must follow the format set by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.350. The court may grant it when the pending actions share a common question of law or fact, but consolidation is discretionary, so the motion has to persuade the judge that a joint proceeding is genuinely more efficient and fair than separate trials.¹²

The Legal Standard

Section 1048(a) lets a trial court order a joint hearing or trial on any or all issues when actions involve a common question of law or fact, or fully consolidate the actions, along with any additional orders needed to avoid unnecessary costs or delay. Section 1048(b) preserves the flip side of that authority: the court can order separate trials for convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to speed things up, and each party’s constitutional right to a jury trial is preserved.¹

No party has an automatic right to consolidation just because two cases share overlapping facts. The judge weighs judicial economy and the risk of inconsistent rulings against possible prejudice, jury confusion, and delay. Your motion needs to do more than show the cases are related. It needs to show trying them together saves real work and does not hurt anyone.

Pick the Type of Consolidation Before You Draft

California recognizes two forms, and your motion should say which one you want. If you are silent, the court will generally treat the request as consolidation for trial only.

Consolidation for trial. The cases are tried together for convenience, but the pleadings, verdicts, and judgments in each case remain legally separate. This is the more common form and the one courts grant most readily. It fits cases that share a core set of facts but involve different parties or different theories of liability.

Complete consolidation (merger). The pleadings are treated as merged, one set of findings is made, and one judgment is entered. Courts typically reserve this for situations where the parties are identical and the claims could have been joined in a single lawsuit from the start. Expect more resistance, and be ready to explain why separate judgments would not work.

What Rule 3.350 Requires

Rule 3.350 governs the mechanics. Miss any of these and the filing can be rejected or the hearing taken off calendar.

Notice of Motion

The notice of motion must list all named parties in each case, identify which parties have appeared, and name their attorneys of record. It must include the captions of every case sought to be consolidated, with the lowest numbered case listed first. The notice has to be filed in each case sought to be consolidated, not just the lead case.²

Supporting Papers

The motion counts as a single motion for filing fee purposes, so you pay one fee regardless of how many cases you want consolidated. The memorandum of points and authorities, declarations, and other supporting papers are filed only in the lowest numbered case.²

Lead Case and Later Filings

Unless the judge orders otherwise, the lowest numbered case automatically becomes the lead case once consolidation is granted. After that, all subsequent documents must be filed only in the lead case, and each document must show the lead case caption and number followed by the case numbers of all other consolidated cases. The order granting or denying the motion itself gets filed in every case involved.²

The Five Documents in the Packet

A complete motion has a notice of motion, the motion itself, a supporting declaration, a memorandum of points and authorities, and a proposed order. Each does different work.

Notice of motion. Tells all parties when and where the hearing will take place, states the relief you want, identifies every case by caption and number (lowest first), and cites Code of Civil Procedure section 1048 and California Rules of Court, Rule 3.350 as the statutory basis.

Declaration in support. This is the factual backbone. It is a sworn statement, signed under penalty of perjury, from someone with personal knowledge of the relationship between the cases, usually the attorney of record. Lay out the overlapping facts concretely: the same accident, the same contract, the same property, the same course of conduct. Vague assertions that the cases are “related” will not do it. Identify each shared fact, and explain how separate trials would force witnesses to testify twice, require duplicative discovery, or risk contradictory outcomes on the same factual question.

Memorandum of points and authorities. The legal argument. Start with section 1048(a) and the common-question standard, then walk the court through how the facts in your declaration satisfy that standard. Cite California appellate decisions where courts granted consolidation under comparable circumstances. Address efficiency directly: shared witnesses, overlapping document discovery, the danger of inconsistent verdicts. If you expect opposition, take on prejudice and delay arguments here rather than saving them for the reply.

Proposed order. Draft it so the judge only has to sign. Identify all consolidated cases by name and number, designate the lead case, specify whether consolidation is for all purposes or trial only, and include any logistical provisions such as a new case management conference date or deadlines for amended pleadings.

Where to File and How to Serve

File the notice of motion in every case you want consolidated. File the memorandum, declaration, exhibits, and proposed order only in the lowest numbered case.² Check your local court’s rules as well; some California superior courts add their own requirements for consolidated case covers or department assignments.

Serve the motion on all attorneys of record and all self-represented parties in every case sought to be consolidated, not just the parties in your own case.² Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b), moving papers must be served at least 16 court days before the hearing. Service by mail within California adds five calendar days. If either the mailing or delivery address is out of state but within the United States, add ten calendar days. Service by overnight delivery or fax adds two calendar days.³

A proof of service must be filed as part of the motion itself. Rule 3.350 requires it as a component of the motion, and some courts will take the hearing off calendar if the proof of service is missing or defective.²

When the Cases Sit in Different Courts

A section 1048 motion works only when all the cases are already pending in the same court. If related actions are spread across superior courts in different counties, two other tools apply. Code of Civil Procedure section 403 lets a judge transfer non-complex actions from another court in for consolidation, provided the cases share a common question of fact or law and the moving party has made a good faith effort to get all parties to agree; once transferred, the receiving court can order consolidation under section 1048 without a further hearing.⁴ For complex litigation spread across counties, section 404 sets up a separate coordination procedure through the Chairperson of the Judicial Council.⁵

What Happens at the Hearing

Each side gets to argue. The moving party goes first, walking the judge through the shared facts and the efficiency gains. Opposing parties respond. The judge may rule from the bench or take the matter under submission and issue a written order later. Possible outcomes include:

Full consolidation for all purposes, with the cases merging into one proceeding under a single case number.
Consolidation for trial only, with pleadings and judgments remaining separate.
Partial consolidation, such as consolidation for discovery while keeping the trials separate.
Denial, with the cases proceeding independently.

Because the decision is discretionary, appellate review runs under an abuse-of-discretion standard, and reversals are rare.

How the Other Side Will Push Back

If you are opposing a consolidation motion, courts routinely deny consolidation when the downsides outweigh the efficiency gains. The arguments that carry the most weight are concrete rather than general:

Insufficient overlap. The cases share a surface-level connection, but the actual disputed facts or legal theories are different enough that a joint trial would not meaningfully cut duplicative effort.
Jury confusion. Different defendants, different damages theories, or different timelines can overwhelm a jury with information that does not apply equally to all parties.
Prejudice. One case involves inflammatory facts or a particularly sympathetic plaintiff that could unfairly color the jury’s view of a co-defendant in the other case.
Different stages of preparation. If one case is nearly trial-ready and the other is still in early discovery, consolidation effectively delays the more advanced case, and judges weigh this heavily.
Increased burden. Consolidation sometimes makes trial longer and more expensive for a party who would otherwise have had a short, simple case.

The strongest oppositions combine two or more of these arguments and back them with declarations showing the specific harm consolidation would cause. Conclusory statements that consolidation is “prejudicial” or “confusing” rarely persuade without concrete examples.

1
California Legislative Information. California Code CCP 1048
2
Judicial Branch of California. California Rules of Court Rule 3.350 – Consolidation of Cases
3
Justia Law. California Code CCP 1003-1008
4
California Legislative Information. California Code CCP 403
5
Justia Law. California Code CCP 404-404.9