Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 19STCV19944, Date: 2023-04-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV19944    Hearing Date: April 20, 2023    Dept: 72

MOTION FOR AN ORDER GRANTING CONSOLIDATED TRIAL

Date:               4/20/23 (8:30 AM)

Case:               Sung Yong Do et al. v. Konstantinos Raptakis et al. (19STCV19944)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiffs Sung Yong Do and Eunice Yunhee Choe’s Motion for an Order Granting a Consolidated Trial is DENIED.

Plaintiffs Sung Yong Do and Eunice Yunhee Choe move to consolidate trial of the issues in this action. As background for this motion, plaintiffs previously moved for bifurcation of the rescission cause of action with the issue of rescission to be resolved first. On August 23, 2022, the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion, finding that trying the rescission claim first would promote judicial economy.  (8/23/22 Minute Order at 1 [citing Raedeke v. Gibraltar Savings & Loan Assn. (1974) 10 Cal.3d 665, 671].)

Nothing has materially changed in the posture of this case since the Court bifurcated trial per plaintiff’s original request.  In the instant motion, plaintiffs seek to undo the bifurcation they sought without any change in circumstances to warrant this about face. Plaintiffs state that they will no longer pursue the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, and yet the ninth cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress still remains.  Plaintiffs also state they now seek damages in the form of cost of repairs at the subject property “in the first instance,” but wish to preserve a “post-verdict election” on their claim for recission (Mtn. at 4, 6), presumably, in the event plaintiffs prevail but do not like the amount of damages awarded.

Plaintiffs’ eleventh cause of action for recission remains in this action, and the Court will try it first in the interests of judicial economy.  (See 8/23/22 Minute Order.)  If the Court were to find plaintiffs are entitled to recission, unnecessary trial time on damages may be avoided.  If the Court were to find plaintiffs have not proven liability and entitlement to recission, unnecessary trial time on that same liability underlying plaintiffs’ claims for damages may be avoided.  (See Raedeke, 10Cal.3d at 671 [“[I]n a case involving both legal and equitable issues, the trial court may proceed to try the equitable issues first, without a jury . . . , and that if the court’s determination of those issues is also dispositive of the legal issues, nothing further remains to be tried by a jury”].)

Indeed, the instant request harms efficiency and judicial economy.  Trial is currently set to begin on May 30, 2023 with a Final Status Conference set for May 19, 2023. Since August 23, 2022, a bench trial concerning rescission has been set as the first phase of trial. Altering the planned course of trial would require the parties to change their trial preparation at this late stage of the proceedings, including requiring defendants to prepare to defend against plaintiffs’ claim for costs of repair as damages.  Plaintiffs clearly recognize this prejudice, noting that defendants have indicated a consolidation of trial would require a continuance to at least September 2023.  (Reply at 3.)  Plaintiffs are not entitled to consolidation, particularly where, as here, the request would prejudice defendants in their preparation for the upcoming trial. (Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1127, 1149 [“Consolidation under Code of Civil Procedure section 1048 is permissive….”].)

The Court may exercise is discretion to consolidate matters “to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.”  (CCP 1048(a).)  Granting plaintiffs’ request would have the opposite effect.

The motion is DENIED.