Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District 

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

 

Plaintiff Bill Howell and Deborah Howell, Trustees of the Howell Family Trust dated July 2, 2013 (the “Trust”) own the property located at 610 S. Topanga Canyon Blvd, Topanga, CA 90290 (the “Property”).  On July 30, 2024, the Trust sued Defendant Oliva Corbett, the tenant at the Property, in small claims court for damaging the Property.  Corbett then counter-sued Bill Howell to get back her security deposit and rent paid from October 2021 to March 2022.   

The County of Los Angeles later determined that the rental unit was not properly permitted, and the unit should be demolished or removed from the Property.  Accordingly, the Trust provided 60 days notice to Corbett to move out, by August 19, 2024.  Corbett eventually moved out on November 2, 2024, after the Trust filed an unlawful detainer action, and the court entered a stipulated judgment for possession only.   

Once the Trust regained possession, it dismissed its small claims action against Corbett.  However, Corbett’s cross-complaint against the Trust is still pending.   

On November 1, 2024, the Trust filed the instant action against Corbett for failing to pay the reasonable value for use of the Property.  The Trust has asked the small claims court to transfer the small claims action to this Court, but the transfer motion will not be heard until February 27, 2025. 

This hearing is on the Trust’s motion to consolidate the small claims action with this matter.  The Trust argues that the two cases involve common issues of fact and law, namely whether the Trust is entitled to compensation for the reasonable value for use of the Property even if the rental unit was unpermitted.  The Trust also contends that consolidation will promote judicial efficiency, and absent consolidation, there is a risk of inconsistent rulings.   

LEGAL STANDARD 

“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(a).)  The purpose of consolidation is to enhance trial court efficiency by avoiding unnecessary duplication of evidence and the danger of inconsistent results.  (Todd-Stenberg v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 976, 978-979.)   

The decision to consolidate is entirely within the Court’s discretion. (Id..)  Actions may be consolidated in the discretion of the trial court whenever it can be done without prejudice to a substantial right, and the exercise of such discretion will not be reviewed except in a case of palpable abuse.  (Carpenson v. Najarian (1967) 254 Cal.App.2d 856, 862.)  

Unless the parties stipulate to consolidate cases, a noticed and written motion to consolidate is required. (California Rules of Court, Rule 3.350.)  “A notice of motion to consolidate must: (A) List all named parties in each case, the names of those who have appeared, and the names of their respective attorneys of record; (B) Contain the captions of all the cases sought to be consolidated, with the lowest numbered case shown first; and (C) Be filed in each case sought to be consolidated.” 

Additionally, “[c]ases 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.” (LASC 3.3.) 

ANALYSIS 

The Trust’s notice of motion fails to comply with the rules.  The cases the Trust seek to consolidate are not related into a single department nor were they assigned to the same department.  According to the Trust, there is a pending motion to transfer in the small claims action, but it has not yet been heard.  It will not be heard until three days after the hearing on the instant motion.     

Further, the procedure related to small claims and civil actions are so vastly different that consolidating the two cases would complicate the proceedings and undermine the intent of the Small Claims Act.  The Small Claims Act was created “to provide a judicial forum in which minor civil disputes can be resolved expeditiously, inexpensively, and fairly.¿(Code Civ. Proc., § 116.120 , subd. (b).) The act vests the Judicial Council with authority to promulgate rules and forms which are consistent with this purpose (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 116.920, subd. (a)¿and¿116.120, subd. (d)) and sets forth jurisdictional limitations for such actions (Code Civ. Proc., § 116.220). Pretrial discovery is not allowed (Code Civ. Proc., § 116.310, subd. (b)) and the hearing is required to be informal (Code Civ. Proc., § 116.510).”¿(Acuna v. Gunderson Chevrolet, Inc. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1467, 1472-1473.)  If the court is to grant the motion for consolidation, the statutory limitations created by the Small Claims Act would be erased, including the prohibitions against pretrial discovery, jury trial and a plaintiff’s appeal.  (Id.) 

We note, in this regard, that the only circumstance under which a small claims case may be transferred to another court is set forth in¿ Code Civ. Proc. § 116.390¿as follows: “If a¿defendant¿has a claim against a plaintiff that exceeds the jurisdictional limits [of small claims court] . . . 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.” (Italics added.)¿The defendant’s request must be filed “at or before the time set for the hearing of [the small claims] action” (Code Civ. Proc., § 116.390, subd. (b)), but the transfer shall not be¿made “until after a judgment is rendered unless the ends of justice would be served.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 116.390, subd. (c).)   

This grant to a small claims¿defendant¿of the right to request transfer, and the absence of any similar provision for a small claims¿plaintiff, demonstrates that the Legislature did not intend the plaintiff to have such a privilege. (Acuna, 19 Cal.App.4th at 1472.)  To be sure, while the Trust is the plaintiff in the small claims action, it has been counter-sued by Corbett, and arguably as a cross-defendant, it can take advantage of Code Civ. Proc. § 116.390.  However, Code Civ. Proc. § 116.390¿requires that the request to transfer be made to the small claims court, and any transfer cannot be made until after a judgment is rendered in the small claims court.  Accordingly, § 116.390 does not authorize this Court to grant a motion to consolidate under the circumstances of this case.   

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to consolidate.   

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED: February 24, 2025 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court