Judge Curtis A. Kin, Case 22STCV39662 2023-04-25 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 22STCV39662, Date: 2023-04-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV39662 Hearing Date: April 25, 2023 Dept: 72

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

Date: 4/25/23 (8:30 AM)

Case: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn., et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al. (22STCV39662)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant City of Los Angeles’ Motion to Consolidate Cases for Pretrial Proceedings and for Trial is GRANTED.

Defendant City of Los Angeles moves to consolidate the following actions for all purposes: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association et al. v. City of Los Angeles et al., Case No. 22STCV39662 (“HJTA Action”) and Newcastle Courtyards, LLC et al. v. City of Los Angeles et al., Case No. 23STCV00352 (“Newcastle Action”). The motion is joined by defendants Korean Immigrant Workers Advocates of Southern California, Southern California Association of Non-Profit Housing, Inc., and Service Employees International Union Local 2015 as interested persons.

Moving parties maintain that CCP § 865 requires the consolidation of the HJTA Action and the Newcastle Action for all purposes. The Newcastle Action plaintiffs contend that CCP § 865 requires consolidation for trial only, not for all purposes.

CCP § 865 states: “If more than one action is pending concerning similar contests which may be brought under this chapter, they shall be consolidated for trial.” In Committee for Responsible Planning v. City of Indian Wells (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 191 (“Indian Wells”), cited by moving parties, the Court of Appeal noted that courts had referred to both consolidation resulting in a single action and consolidation of separate actions for trial as consolidation for trial. (Indian Wells, 225 Cal.App.3d at 197.) Stating that the term “consolidated for trial” has no fixed meaning, the Indian Wells court examined the meaning of the term with respect to validation actions pursuant to CCP § 865.

In Indian Wells, five actions were brought to challenge the validity of the City of Indian Wells’ approval of redevelopment projects. (Indian Wells, 225 Cal.App.3d at 193.) The trial court consolidated the five actions for trial. (Id. at 194.) Upon request of some of the parties who had settled, the trial court entered judgment in four of the five actions. (Ibid.) The plaintiff in the remaining action appealed. The Court of Appeal found that the trial court could not enter separate judgments because “the validation statutes call for consolidation of all challenges and entry of a single judgment to dispose of all issues in the suit.” (Id. at 195.) The Court of Appeal found that the parties’ contentions in each of the actions were not independent because the actions all related to the same issue, the validity of Indian Wells’ approval of the redevelopment projects. (Id. at 198.) Accordingly, the Court of Appeal held that CCP § 865 “should be construed to require consolidation for all purposes, including entry of judgment.” (Ibid.)

Under the holding of Indian Wells, the Court is required to consolidate the HJTA Action and the Newcastle Action for all purposes. The Newcastle Action plaintiffs contend that the holding in Indian Wells was superseded by the California Supreme Court’s ruling in Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1127, which stated that in a “consolidation for purposes of trial only…the two actions remain otherwise separate.” (Hamilton, 22 Cal.4th at 1147.) However, this holding was with respect to CCP § 1048(a). No case has overturned Indian Wells. Accordingly, the holding in Indian Wells with respect to CCP § 865 remains binding.

Indeed, consolidation of both actions for all purposes is logical. Consolidation ensures that the findings on dispositive motions remain consistent, as CCP § 870 requires that any “judgment be binding on all challengers to the agency action.” (Indian Wells, 225 Cal.App.3d at 198; see also CCP § 870 [“The judgment…shall…thereupon become and thereafter be forever binding and conclusive, as to all matters therein adjudicated or which at that time could have been adjudicated, against the agency and against all other persons….”].)

The motion is GRANTED. Pursuant to CCP § 865 and the holding in Indian Wells, the following actions are consolidated for all purposes: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association et al. v. City of Los Angeles et al., Case No. 22STCV39662 and Newcastle Courtyards, LLC et al. v. City of Los Angeles et al., Case No. 23STCV00352. Case No. 22STCV39662 is designated the lead case. Pursuant to Rule of Court 3.350(c), subsequent documents must be filed only in the lead case.