Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 23STCV21901, Date: 2023-12-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV21901    Hearing Date: December 4, 2023    Dept: 55

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:  Plaintiffs Mercedes Oroz and Gabriel Eduardo Marin's Motion to Consolidate the Eviction Case With Civil Case; Stay the Eviction Proceeding.

The motion is denied.

On 9/12/23,  MERCEDES OROZ and GABRIEL EDUARDO MARIN  (“plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint against FRANCE M. NESE TRUSTEES OF NESE FAMILY TRUST and NESE FAMILY TRUST (“defendants”), alleging that the landlord, owners, trust, or beneficiaries are liable for the landlord’s attempting to evict plaintiffs in retaliation for inhabitability complaints, Plaintiff’s personal injury case, and low rent due to rent control.

The causes of action are:  1. Breach of Rental Contract;  2. Breach of Covenant of Good Faith And Fair Dealing;  3. Trespass;  4. Harassment;  5. Retaliation;  6. Wrongful Eviction [CA Civil Code   § 789.3(A)];  7. Uncured Building Violations [Code   § 1942.2];  8. Breach Of Warranty of Habitability [Code   § 1941];  9. Elder Abuse;  10. Declaratory Relief;  and  11.  Injunction….

Plaintiffs request an order consolidating the Unlawful Detainer (UD) Complaint, number 23STUD08828, with this case, and staying the UD action pending the resolution of the civil case.

Reasons given include that the landlord is attempting to evict elderly tenants who pay $690 monthly rent under rent control, from residential property at 635 N. Avenue 50, Los Angeles, having uninhabitable conditions, including water damage, rodent infestation and mold.

On 10/5/23, defendants opposed a related ex parte application, arguing that relating and consolidating the cases would delay the UD proceedings, the cases involve different claims, facts, parties and remedies, and Civil Judges generally are less experienced in UD.

On 10/6/23 and again on 10/11/23, the Court denied the request to relate the civil and UD cases.

“Cases may not be consolidated unless they are in the same department. A motion to consolidate two or more cases may be noticed and heard after the cases, initially filed in different departments, have been related into a single department, or if the cases were already assigned to that department.”  L.A.S.C.L.R.  3.3(g)(1).

Clearly, after the Court has denied relating the cases, they are not authorized for consolidation.

If the cases had been deemed related, then the Court would have had discretion as to whether to consolidate the UD and Civil actions. An order determining whether to consolidate is discretionary.  Todd-Stenberg v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust (1996) 48 Cal. App. 4th 976, 978.

Conclusion

The motion is denied, because of the denials of requests to deem the cases related.  L.A.S.C.L.R.  3.3(g)(1).