Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 22STCV03588, Date: 2023-12-07 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV03588 Hearing Date: December 7, 2023 Dept: 76
Pursuant to California Rule of Court
3.1308(a)(1), the Court does not desire oral argument on the motion addressed
herein. Counsel must contact the staff
in Department 76 to inform the Court whether they wish to submit on the
tentative, or to argue the matter. As
required by Rule 3.1308(a), any party seeking oral argument must notify ALL
OTHER PARTIES and the staff of Department 76 of their intent to appear and
argue.
Notice to Department 76 may be sent by email to
smcdept76@lacourt.org or telephonically at 213-830-0776.
Per Rule of Court 3.1308, if notice of intention to appear is not given, the Court may adopt the tentative ruling as the final ruling.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant lessors misrepresented that the commercial warehouse was usable for Plaintiff’s trucking, warehousing, and logistics business, but because the premises were not ADA compliant, it was not eligible for a certificate of occupancy. This resulted in Plaintiff not being able to operate its business, which caused businesses losses.
Plaintiff Jupiter Warehouse and Distribution brings a motion to consolidate this action with the pending case in 23CMCV00833, entitled 300 West Artesia, L.P. v. B&O Express, Inc.
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff Jupiter Warehouse
and Distribution’s motion to consolidate this action with the pending case in
23CMCV00833, entitled 300 West Artesia, L.P. v. B&O Express, Inc. is
DENIED. On October 30, 2023, the Court issued an order finding that cases 23CMCV00833
and 22STCV03688 (this action) are not related within the meaning of Cal. Rules
of Court, rule 3.00(a). Local Rule 3.3(g)(1) provides that cases may not be consolidated unless they are in the same
department, and that any motion to consolidate cases filed in different departments may be noticed and heard after those cases have been related into a single department, or were
already assigned to the same department.