Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 25STCV14642, Date: 2025-05-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 25STCV14642    Hearing Date: May 27, 2025    Dept: 76

Plaintiff Anthony Ayala has filed an ex parte application for an order shortening time and notice on a motion to consolidate case no. 25STCV14642 with case no. 25CHUD00339, or in the alternative, stay case no. 25CHUD00339.  The Court finds the matter suitable for decision in chambers without oral argument.  The application is DENIED for the following reasons.

First, the motion to consolidate that is the subject of the ex parte application has not yet been properly filed.  California Rule of Court 3.350(a)(1)(C) requires that a motion to consolidate cases be filed in each case that is the subject of the motion.  The Court has reviewed the file in case no. 25CHUD00339, which is an unlawful detainer case assigned to Department F44 in the Chatsworth Courthouse.  It does not appear from the Court’s records that the subject motion to consolidate was filed in the unlawful detainer action.  Before hearing the motion to consolidate (especially on an abbreviated schedule as requested), the Court must ensure that proper filing procedure has been followed.

Second, the motion to consolidate does not comply with the Local Rules.  Los Angeles Superior Court Local Rule 3.3(g)(1) provides that “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.”  Since Plaintiff’s proposed motion to consolidate involves cases pending in two different departments, the motion cannot be granted unless both cases are brought into the same department.

Third, and related to the second point set forth above, the instant case is the later-filed of the two cases involved, so Department 76 is not the court to determine whether to relate the cases.  California Rule of Court 3.300(h)(1) provides that where a notice of related cases is filed regarding cases that are pending in the same superior court, “Where all the cases listed in the notice are 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).)  Case no. 25CHUD00339 was filed on March 19, 2025, while the instant case was filed on May 20, 2025.  Therefore, the Rules of Court require Department F44 to make the related case determination, and Local Rule 3.3(f)(3) requires that any motion to have the cases related be heard in Department 1, not this Court.