Department 58

Hearing Date: January 29, 2024

Case Name: Ngo v. Nadlan 3100 Bellevue LLC

Case No.: 21STCV28706

Matter: Motion to Consolidate

Moving Party: Defendants Nadlan 3100 Bellevue LLC and R&E Management

Responding Party: None

Tentative Ruling: The Motion to Consolidate is denied.

BACKGROUND

This is habitability action. The Complaint alleges substandard conditions at an apartment complex located at 3100 Bellevue Avenue, Los Angeles, CA.

On March 2, 2023, Plaintiff Chelsea Ngo filed a notice of related cases seeking to relate this action with case number 21STCV29022 (Brittany Ingram v. Nadlan 3100 Bellevue, LLC, et al.), and with case number 21STCV43157 (Brittany D’Amico, et al. v. Nadlan 3100 Bellevue, LLC, et al). On September 1, 2023, the Court ordered these cases not related.

Now, Defendants Nadlan 3100 Bellevue LLC and R&E Management (Defendants) seek to consolidate this action with those same cases. No opposition was filed.

The motion to consolidate is denied.

DISCUSSION

Defendants seek to consolidate these three cases on the grounds that they involve common questions of law and fact. Further, Defendants are the same in all three matters, and therefore all of the same property managers, maintenance personnel, and other witnesses regarding the conditions if the property will be nearly identical in all the matters. Lastly, consolidating these three cases will avoid unnecessary costs and delay and avoid the potential of inconsistent judgments.

The trial court has discretion to consolidate actions involving common questions of law or fact. (Code Civ. Proc., §1048.) The purpose of consolidation is “to promote trial convenience and economy by avoiding duplication of procedure, particularly in the proof of issues common to both actions.” (Estate of Baker (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 471, 485.)

Consolidation is appropriate when the actions involve common questions of law or fact and to avoid unnecessary costs or delay. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a).) In deciding whether to grant a motion to consolidate, the court should weigh whether the common issues predominate over the individual issues and whether any risks of jury confusion or prejudice to the parties outweighs the reduction in time and expense that would result from consolidation. (Todd-Stenberg v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 976, 979.)¿

As noted above, the Court previously found these cases were not related. The complaints contain overlapping claims that are based on the same nucleus of facts: the physical conditions of the building, and landlord Defendant’s alleged failure to properly maintain the habitability of the building and comply with the law.

However, each case involves a different tenant and different units. The defects in each unit are separate from each other, may have different causes, and may have occurred over different periods of time. Further, the evidentiary showing for each party to demonstrate the cause of their injury and their damages will be separate and distinct.

Thus, the motion to consolidate must be denied for these substantive reasons.

Further, the Court’s finding that the cases are not related effectively precludes an order granting a motion to consolidate, pursuant to Superior Court of Los Angeles County (LASC), Local Rule 3.3, subdivision (g).

Local Rule 3.3(g) sets forth the procedural requirements for motions to consolidate applicable to the instant case; it states, in relevant part:

“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.”

As these cases are not in the same department and have not been ordered related, the motion to consolidate is also denied for these procedural reasons.

Accordingly, the motion to consolidate is denied.