Defendant Second Home US, Inc.’s Motion for Consolidation

Defendant Second Home US, Inc. moves to consolidate this action with St. Andrews Second Home LLC v. Second Home US Inc., et al., case No. 23STCV21223.  Code of Civil Procedure section 1048(a) provides, “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.” 

This action alleges breach of lease by the lessee of commercial property in Hollywood.  The latter action is an unlawful detainer proceeding concerning the same property.  Though they have overlapping issues, the primary issue in the unlawful detainer action is possession of the premises.  (Harris v. Bissell (1921) 54 Cal.App. 307, 313.)  “The denial of certain procedural rights which are enjoyed by litigants in ordinary actions is deemed necessary in order to prevent frustration of the summary proceedings by the introduction of delays and extraneous issues.”  (Vasey v. California Dance Co. (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 742, 747.)  Consolidating the cases would frustrate the summary proceeding under which plaintiff seeks to regain possession of the property.

Defendant relies on cases regarding consolidation of an unlawful detainer action with an unlimited civil action that includes the issue of title to the property.  (See, e.g., Martin-Bragg v. Moore (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 367, 385 [“When an unlawful detainer proceeding and an unlimited action concerning title to the property are simultaneously pending, the trial court in which the unlimited action is pending may stay the unlawful detainer action until the issue of title is resolved in the unlimited action, or it may consolidate the actions”].)  Title to the property is not at issue in this civil action.  Plaintiff’s complaint alleges only breach of contract.  Second Home US, Inc.’s cross-complaint alleges breach of contract and fraud. 

Moreover, the court has already declined to find these cases related.  Local Rule 3.3(g)(1) provides, “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.”  These actions are not in the same department.  The court therefore cannot consolidate them.

Defendant Second Home US, Inc.’s motion to consolidate is denied.