Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 21STCV19845, Date: 2023-05-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV19845    Hearing Date: May 5, 2023    Dept: 52

Plaintiff Perry Lazar and Cross-Defendant Odalis C. Suarez’s Motion to Consolidate

Plaintiff Perry Lazar and cross-defendant Odalis C. Suarez move to consolidate three related cases: (1) this case, Perry Lazar, et al. v. Kalousd Pandazos, et al., No. 21STCV19845; (2) Perry Lazar, et al. v. Brad Korb, et al., No. 21STCV34102; and (3) Perry Lazar, et al., v. County of Los Angeles, et al., No. 22STCV34822.  “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.”  (CCP § 1048(a).) 

Lazar and Suarez seek “an Order consolidating all actions for all purposes.”  (Motion, p. 9.)  There are “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.)  Generally, complete consolidation “ ‘may be utilized where the parties are identical and the causes could have been joined.’ ”  (Committee for Responsible Planning v. City of Indian Wells (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 191, 196.)

The three actions involve common questions of law or fact.  They all arise from the creation of and transfers of the same subject property: Assessor’s Parcel Number 5867-011-036 (parcel 36).  The three actions concern title to the property and various claims for damages between its owners, former owners, real estate professionals, and government entities involved with parcel 36 and neighboring parcel 35. 

The court finds that complete consolidation is not appropriate.  The parties to the three cases are not identical.  For example, Kalousd Pandazos and Dalila Pandazos are only parties to the first action.  Michelle Pascual is only a party in the second action.  The final case is only between plaintiff Perry Lazar and defendants County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Flood Control District, and Crescenta Valley Water District.  The numerous other parties are not involved in that action. 

Limited consolidation, however, is appropriate.  Consolidating the first two actions for trial only will promote convenience and serve judicial economy.  They include significant overlapping questions of law and fact.  The third action shares substantially less in common with the first two actions.     

Plaintiff Perry Lazar and cross-defendant Odalis C. Suarez’s motion to consolidate is granted in part.  The court hereby consolidates the actions Perry Lazar, et al. v. Kalousd Pandazos, et al., No. 21STCV19845 and Perry Lazar, et al. v. Brad Korb, et al., No. 21STCV34102, for purposes of trial only.  The court notes that the trial in each action has already been bifurcated into a court trial phase and a jury trial phase.  The trial of the two consolidated actions will also be bifurcated into court and jury phases.

The clerk shall file this order in each of the three cases.