Judge Colin Leis, Case Number: 23STCV19222, Date: 2025-03-05 Tentative Ruling

On May 10, 2024, Plaintiff Georgianna Garcia (“Garcia”) filed her operative First Amended Complaint against Defendants Crystal Chao, an individual and in her capacity as Trustee of the Chao Cystal Trust, and Alta Villa Homeowner’s Association aka Alta Villa HOA (collectively “Defendants”) (the “Garcia Action”). The FAC asserts multiple theories of negligence and breach of the implied warranty of habitability arising from Garcia’s tenancy at a rental unit.

On December 30, 2024, Garcia filed a Motion to Consolidate the Garcia Action with Gabriel Ceballos, et al. vs. Crystal Chao, et al., LASC Case No. 24STCV21053 (“the Ceballos Action”), which is assigned to this Court.[1] On February 3, 2025, the Court denied the motion because the it did not comply with California Rules of Court 3.350.

On February 4, 2025, Garcia filed a second Motion to Consolidate (the “Motion”), which is before the court now.

“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.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc. § 1048,¿subd. (a).)¿ The purpose of consolidation is to enhance trial court efficiency by avoiding unnecessary duplication of evidence and the danger of inconsistent adjudications.¿ (See Todd-Stenberg v.¿Dalkon¿Shield Claimants Trust¿(1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 976, 978-979.)¿

A notice of motion to consolidate cases must:¿(1) include a list of all named parties in each case, the names of those who have appeared, and the names of their respective attorneys of record; (2) include the captions of all the cases sought to be consolidated; and (3) be filed in each case sought to be consolidated.¿ (Cal. Rules of¿Court, rule 3.350, subd. (a)(1).)¿¿¿

Further, the motion to consolidate: (1) is deemed a single motion for the purpose of determining the appropriate filing fee, but memorandums, declarations, and other supporting papers must be filed only in the lowest numbered case; (2) must be served on all attorneys of record and all nonrepresented parties; and (3) must have proof of service filed as part of the motion. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350, subd. (a)(2).)

“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.”¿ (Super. Ct. L.A. County, Local Rules, rule¿3.3, subd. (g)(1).)¿

Garcia requests (1) an order consolidating the Garcia Action (case no. 23STCV19222) with the Ceballos Action (case no. 24STCV21053) and (2) an order continuing the trial date and all pre-trial deadlines. The Motion is made on the grounds that the two cases arise from a shared tenancy of Garcia and her family (i.e., her partner and their three children), who are the plaintiffs in the Ceballos Action; and, if the cases are consolidated, the parties need additional time to complete discovery and prepare for trial.

The court finds that the Notice of Motion list all named parties in each case, the names of those who have appeared, the names of their respective attorneys of record, and the captions of both cases. Further, the Notice of Motion is filed in both cases. Therefore, the Notice of Motion meets the requirements under rule 3.350, subd. (a)(1).

The court also finds that the memorandum and supporting documents are filed only in the lowest numbered case (i.e., case no. 23STCV19222). The proof of service filed as part of the Motion shows Garcia served the moving papers on counsel for Defendants. Therefore, the Motion itself meets the requirements under rule 3.350, subd. (a)(2).

Last, the court finds that both cases are in the same department and involve common issues of fact and law.

The action entitled, Garcia vs. Chao., Inc., et al. (Case No. 23STCV19222), and the action entitled, Ceballos, et al. v. Chao., et al., (Case no. 24STCV21053) are to be consolidated for all purposes, including trial, within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure, §1048(a).

The court will select a new trial date at the hearing on the motion to consolidate.

[1] The Ceballos action is also a habitability action involving Defendants. The plaintiffs are Garcia’s partner, Gabriel Ceballos, and her three children, Cayden Ceballos, Ryan Ceballos, and Faith Ceballos.