Judge: Cynthia A Freeland, Case: 37-2022-00050067-CU-BC-NC, Date: 2023-08-25 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

SOUTH BUILDING TENTATIVE RULINGS - August 24, 2023

08/25/2023  01:30:00 PM  N-27 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Cynthia A. Freeland

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00050067-CU-BC-NC DAHUD VS. SALAZAR [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 08/01/2023

Plaintiff Nora Dahud ('Plaintiff')'s motion to transfer and consolidate Salazar v. Dahud (San Diego County Superior Court Small Claims Case No. 37-2022-00027763-SC-SC-CTL) (the 'Small Claims Action') with the present action, Dahud v. Salazar (San Diego County Superior Court Case No.

37-2022-00050067-CU-BC-NC) (the 'Present Action'), is granted.

California Code of Civil Procedure ('CCP') § 116.390(a) provides that: If a defendant has a claim against a plaintiff that exceeds the jurisdictional limits stated in Sections 116.220, 116.221, and 116.231, and the claim relates to the contract, transaction, matter, or event which is the subject of the plaintiff's claim, the defendant may commence an action against the plaintiff in a court of competent jurisdiction and request the small claims court to transfer the small claims action to that court.

Cal. Code Civ. P. § 116.390(a).

In addition, CCP § 1048(a) provides that '[w]hen 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.' Cal. Code Civ. P. § 1048(a). The purpose of consolidation is to avoid: (1) unnecessary costs or delays; (2) procedural duplication (particularly in proving issues common to both actions); and (3) inconsistent rulings. See Estate of Baker (1982) 131 Cal. App. 3d 471, 485. In determining whether to order consolidation, courts generally consider: (1) the timeliness of the motion; (2) whether joining the actions would make the trial too confusing or complex for a jury; and (3) whether consolidation would adversely affect the rights of any party. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Sup. Ct., In and For the City and County of San Francisco (1956) 47 Cal. 2d 428, 430-431. Courts should weigh whether: (1) common issues predominate over individual issues, and (2) any risks of jury confusion or prejudice to the parties outweigh the reduction in time and expense that consolidation would occasion. See Todd-Stenberg v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust (1996) 48 Cal. App. 4th 976, 978. The court has broad discretion to consolidate actions. Ibid. at 978-979.

The court construes the lack of opposition from any interested party as a concession of the motion's merits. See San Diego Rules of Court, Rule 2.1.19.B. In addition, the court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated sufficient cause to consolidate the Small Claims Action and the Present Action. There are significant factual overlays such that consolidation is appropriate. More specifically, Defendants Adriana Salazar and Shayla Mackson have sued Plaintiff in Small Claims Court contending that Plaintiff owes Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2992875 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  DAHUD VS. SALAZAR [IMAGED]  37-2022-00050067-CU-BC-NC them $2,518.00 in unpaid rent arising from a September 2022 lease agreement between the parties.

Plaintiff commenced the Present Action by filing a Complaint against Ms. Salazar, Ms. Mackson, and others for: (1) unfair competition under California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq.; (2) declaratory relief; and (3) breach of oral contract. The Complaint involves the same lease agreement and alleges that, inter alia, Ms. Salazar and Ms. Mackson refused to allow Plaintiff to remain at the subject property after Plaintiff contracted COVID-19, and forced Plaintiff, as a condition to her retrieving her belongings from the property, to sign a contract that she would continue paying rent until Ms.

Salazar and Ms. Mackson could find a roommate to replace Plaintiff. Plaintiff ultimately paid Ms. Salazar and Ms. Mackson monthly rent of $806.52 from January to March 2022. That being said, common issues predominate over individual issues. Indeed, both cases involve Plaintiff's tenancy and the alleged damages arising therefrom. Moreover, litigating these issues in a single forum will promote judicial efficiency and the ends of justice. Notably, Ms. Salazar and Ms. Mackson, by failing to oppose the motion, have not demonstrated any prejudice resulting from consolidation.

In light of the foregoing, the court grants the motion and orders that the Small Claims Action and the Present Action be consolidated for all purposes. The court will sign Plaintiff's proposed order. Plaintiff is directed to file a copy of the signed order in the Small Claims Action. See Cal. R. Ct. 3.350(c).

This is the tentative ruling for the hearing at 1:30 p.m. on Friday, August 25, 2023. If no party appears at the hearing, this tentative ruling will become the order of the court as of August 25, 2023. If the parties are satisfied with the court's tentative ruling or do not otherwise wish to argue the motion, they are encouraged to give notice to the court and each other of their intention not to appear, though this notice is not required.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2992875