Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 23STCV07000, Date: 2023-04-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV07000    Hearing Date: April 27, 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.  As required by Rule 3.1308(a)(2), 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.  If notice of intention to appear is not given and the parties do not appear, the Court will adopt the tentative ruling as the final ruling.

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's motion to consolidate the instant case with a separate unlawful detainer case entitled Alliance Portfolio v. The Bissell House, Case No. 23AHCV00580.   The motion has multiple defects and must be DENIED.

The first problem:  Los Angeles Superior Court Local Rule 3.3(g) provides that "[c]ases may not be consolidated unless they are in the same department."  The Alliance Portfolio case is not in this department.  It is assigned to Department X in the Alhambra Courthouse.  Thus, the Local Rules preclude the requested consolidation at this time.

The second problem:  in order to have two unlimited civil cases to be related and assigned to the same department,  one of the parties must file a "Notice of Related Cases."  (Cal. R. Ct. 3.300(b).)  A Notice of Related Cases "must be served and filed as soon as possible, but no later than 15 days after the facts concerning the existence of related cases become known."  (Cal. R. Ct. 3.300(e).)  Moving party did not file a Notice of Related Cases prior to bringing this motion.  The Rules of Court preclude reassignment in the absence of a Notice of Related Cases.  Also, the instant case was filed more than 15 days ago, yet Plaintiff did not comply with the timing requirement of Rule 3.300.

The third problem:  when a Notice of Related Cases has been filed with regard to two or more unlimited civil cases, "the judge who has the earliest filed case must determine whether the cases must be ordered related and assigned to his or her department . . . ."  (Cal. R. Ct. 3.300(h)(1)(A).)  The Alliance Portfolio case was filed on March 16, 2023.  The instant case was filed on March 30, 2023.  Thus, under the Rules of Court, Alhambra Department X--not Stanley Mosk Department 76--is the place to be arguing whether these cases are related.

The fourth problem:  the alternative relief sought--that the Court stay proceedings in 23AHCV00580--cannot be granted, for the same reasons that the Court cannot consider the request to consolidate the cases.