Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 23STCV29782, Date: 2024-02-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV29782    Hearing Date: February 28, 2024    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

Background

Pleadings

Pursuant to a December 6, 2023 Complaint, Plaintiff Rafael Davila Madrigal, aka Rafael Davila, individually and doing business as 4 Wheel Auto Dismantler, and dba 4 Wheel Truck & Van Dismantlers (Davila Madrigal), and Alicia Brisila Davila (Brisila Davila)—both in pro per (collectively, the Davila Parties)—sue Defendants Union Mutualista De San Jose (Union Mutualista), Paulino Lopez (Lopez) as President of Union Mutualista, Rafael Barraza as President of Union Mutualista (Barraza), and Does 1 through 20.

(The Court refers to Plaintiffs Davila Madrigal and Brisila Davila as the “Davila Parties” for ease of reference where the parties stand both as plaintiffs and defendants, and where the Plaintiffs in the lead action share this surname.)

The Complaint alleges claims of (1) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) and (2) Breach of Unfair Business Practices Act, § 17200.

The claims arise from allegations that the Davila Parties leased commercial premises from Defendants for the purpose of operating a car dismantling business and that Defendants engaged in conduct amounting to IIED and unfair business practices by: (1) increasing the Davila Parties’ monthly rent from $2,000 to $2,500 and then from $2,500 to $5,000 per month, with the dates of those increases not specifically alleged, for the purpose of vacating the property quickly for sale; and (2) demanding that the Davila Parties vacate the premises with only a month’s notice despite being on notice that the Davila Parties needed more time to remove heavy equipment from the premises, including the relocating of the Davila Parties’ car parts, heavy machinery, containers, recycling equipment and machinery, multi-dismantling machinery and equipment, vehicles, trucks, and car rim crushers, etc.

Related Cases

On December 28, 2023, the Davila Parties—in pro per—filed a notice of related case identifying 23LBUD02282, Union Mutualista De San Jose v. Davila Madrigal, et al. (the Unlawful Detainer or UD Action), and 23STCV29782, Davila Madrigal, et al. v. Union Mutualista De San Jose, et al. (this, the Civil Action) as related cases.

On January 4, 2024, Department S13 of the South District, Deukmejian Court, granted a motion for summary adjudication filed by Union Mutualista in relation to the second cause of action in the UD Action.

On January 12, 2024, the Court related all three actions, made the Civil Action the lead case, and assigned the two actions to this Court for all purposes.

On January 30, 2024, Union Mutualista filed a demurrer in the Civil Action.

On February 15, 2024, Union Mutualista filed an ex parte application seeking entry of judgment in the UD Action following its successful motion for summary adjudication.

On February 20, 2024, the Court entered the proposed judgment in the UD Action.

Motion Before the Court

On December 28, 2023, the Davila Parties also filed a motion to consolidate the Civil Action with the UD Action.

On February 2, 2024—after summary adjudication was granted in the UD Action on January 4, 2024, but before the UD judgment on February 20, 2024—Union Mutualista opposed the motion to consolidate and filed a request for judicial notice.

No reply appears in the record.

The Davila Parties’ motion is now before the Court.

Request for Judicial Notice

Per Union Mutualista’s request, the Court takes judicial notice of the Department S13 January 4, 2024 summary adjudication minutes, the January 8, 2024 proposed order relating to that motion, and a copy of Union Mutualista’s demurrer in the Civil Action, filed January 30, 2024. (Opp’n, RJN, Exs. 1-3.)

Motion to Consolidate

Legal Standard

When cases involving a common question of law or fact are pending in the same superior court, i.e., in the same county, the cases can be consolidated on a party’s motion or on the court’s own motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 1048, subdivision (a).

Cases can be consolidated for (1) all purposes (Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp. (200) 22 Cal.4th 1127, 1147; see Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a)), (2) for trial (Stubblefield Constr. Co. v. City of San Bernardino (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 687, 701; see Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a)), or (3) for limited purposes, e.g., discovery or pretrial matters (see Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a); see, e.g., State v. Altus Fin., S.A. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1284, 1293 [cases consolidated for discovery and pretrial matters]; Austin B. v. Escondido Un. Sch. Dist. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 860, 870 [cases consolidated for discovery and trial]; Frieman v. San Rafael Rock Quarry, Inc. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 29, 33 [cases consolidated for discovery and pretrial determinations]).

To prevail on a motion to consolidate, a movant must establish that (1) the cases are pending before the same court, (2) the cases share a common question of law or fact, and (3) the benefits of consolidation outweigh the burdens. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a).)

Order Consolidating Actions: MOOT.

Here, the UD Action and Civil Action are pending before the same Court (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a)) and have been related, as required by the Local Rules prior to consolidation (Super. Ct. L.A. County, Local Rules, rule 3.3, subd. (g)(1)).

However, the moving papers and the opposition were filed prior to judgment in the UD Action springing from Union Mutualista’s successful summary adjudication motion, which has effectively mooted the thrust of the arguments there. (See Mot., pp. 7-8 [convenience and judicial economy in consolidating cases for discovery and trial, thus saving on costs for court reporters, appearances, witness costs, and transcript costs]; cf. 1/4/24 23LBUD02282 Minutes [summary adjudication]; 2/20/24 Judgment; see also Opp’n, pp. 4-5 [need for precedence of the UD Action over the Civil Action], 5-6 [cf. consolidation runs afoul of rule of consolidating UD actions with other proceedings, and demurrer will dispose of Civil Action].)

No reply appears in the record.

The Court determines that the UD judgment has mooted a determination on consolidation insofar as there is no need for joint discovery or trial determinations. A res judicata effect flows from the UD judgment and can be raised in challenges to the pleadings or evidence as applicable.

The Davila Parties’ motion is thus MOOT. 

Conclusion

Plaintiffs Rafael Davila Madrigal and Alicia Brisila Davila’s Motion to Consolidate is MOOT.