Judge: Carolyn M. Caietti, Case: 37-2020-00005978-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-01-05 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - December 07, 2023

12/08/2023  10:30:00 AM  C-70 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Carolyn Caietti

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2020-00005978-CU-BC-CTL IBARRA VS FOTI [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Plaintiff Ramon Ibarra's Motion to Consolidate Actions is DENIED.

Preliminary Matters Plaintiff seeks consolidation of this case, Ibarra v. Foti, et al (Case No. 2020-5978, the 'Ibarra Civil Action'), with Foti v. Ibarra, et al (Case No. 2023-25627, the 'Foti UD Action'). The Court previously deemed the cases related. (ROA 95 – Minute Order dated Sept. 15, 2023.) In the Ibarra Civil Action, Plaintiff seek to recover and offset costs incurred from repairs he performed at a commercial property and for specific performance of a right of first refusal to purchase the property under a lease agreement.

The Foti UD Action is an unlawful detainer action against Ibarra regarding the same commercial property.

There is no dispute all parties have been provided notice of this motion and complied with California Rules of Court 3.350(a)(1)(C).

Discussion '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.' (C.C.P., § 1048(a).) A trial court has broad discretion to consolidate actions (Todd-Stenberg v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 976, 978-79) and 'it is for the trial court to determine whether the consolidation is for all purposes or for trial only.' (Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1127, 1149.) Here, the Ibarra Civil Action and the Foti UD Action do not involve common questions of law and fact sufficient for consolidation. (C.C.P., § 1048(a).) While the cases concern the same parties and the same property, the issues are different. First, they do not concern title and Plaintiff does not make a claim for title in the Ibarra Civil Action. (See, Martin-Bragg v. Moore (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 367, 385, 395 (holding the trial court's determination of ownership issues within the summary unlawful detainer proceeding and refusal to permit trial of the issue of title outside of the summary procedures was an abuse of discretion, requiring the judgment's reversal and remand for determination of the parties' rights to legal and beneficial title to the property and their respective rights to possession based on that determination).) Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3023781  46 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  IBARRA VS FOTI [IMAGED]  37-2020-00005978-CU-BC-CTL Rather, Ibarra is seeking specific performance of the right of first refusal, which can be awarded even if Foti is successful in the Foti UD Action. Further, a right of first refusal is only a conditional right to acquire property depending on the owner's willingness to sell and receipt of a bonafide offer to purchase it. As Foti argues in opposition, should Ibarra prevail in the Ibarra Civil Action, then he would be granted the ability to purchase the property dependent on his ability to perform and consummate the sale.

Possession does not interfere with his potential purchase. Ibarra did not reply.

In addition, Ibarra does not allege any of the repairs, monies spent or services performed should be offset as rent. (See, ex., FAC, at ¶¶ 47-48.) The Court also considered several other factors. (See, Cal. Judges Benchbook: Civ. Proc. Before Trial, § 2.85.) Consolidation will negatively result in a delay of the Foti UD Action since unlawful detainers are on a faster time-track. It will be more costly for Foti to delay the UD Action. And as discussed above, there is a low possibility the results reached in the cases will conflict.

Under the Court's broad discretion, for these reasons, the motion is DENIED.

The Status Conference remains on calendar to discuss whether Plaintiff acquired new legal representation and to set trial dates.

If the tentative ruling is confirmed without modification, the Court's minute order will be the Court's final ruling. Defendant Foti is ordered to serve written notice of the Court's final ruling on all parties in both cases by December 12, 2023.

The parties are reminded to comply with Department 70's Policies and Procedures and to provide courtesy copies of all motion paperwork.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3023781  46