Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 24SMCV00907, Date: 2025-06-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV00907    Hearing Date: June 3, 2025    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Meyers v. Migdal, Case no. 24SMCV00907

Hearing date June 3, 2025

Defendants Migdal BH Properties, North Oak Real Estate’s Motion to Consolidate

Plaintiff Meyers sues defendants Migdal BH Properties (“Migdal”), LLC and North Oak Real Estate Investments, Inc. for negligence, trespass, nuisance and violations of Health & Safety codes, alleging a fire in her apartment started due to faulty wiring. Three cases have previously been related to this case: (1) Cheek v. Migdal, case no. 24SMCV03153; (2) Ashby v. Migdal, case no. 24SMCV03158; and (3) Migdal v. Meyers, case no. 24SMCV03869.

Defendants cross-complain against Meyers, in whose apartment the fire originated, for negligence and indemnity in Meyers, Cheek and Ashby cases. Defendants move to consolidate all four cases; plaintiffs Cheek and Ashby oppose consolidation of Migdal v. Meyers.

Cases may be consolidated when the pending actions involve common questions of law or fact in order to avoid unnecessary costs or delay. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §1048(a).  Where the actions present essentially the same or overlapping issues, they should be consolidated and disposed of as a single proceeding. Spector v. Court of San Mateo County (1961) 55 Cal.2d 839, 844. The burden on moving party is to show the issues in each case are basically the same, and "economy and convenience" would be best served by a joint trial. Jud Whitehead Heater Co. v. Obler (1952) 111 Cal.App.2d 861, 867.

In Meyers v. Migdal, case no. 24SMCV00907, tenant Meyers sues landlords Migdal and North Oak for fire damages; defendants cross-complained against Meyers for contributing to the fire.

In Cheek v. Migdal, case no. 24SMCV03153, unrelated tenant Cheek sues Migdal and North Oak for loss as a result of the fire. Defendants cross complain against Meyers.

In Ashby v. Migdal, case no. 24SMCV03158, unrelated tenant Ashby sues Migdal and North Oak for loss as a result of the fire. Defendants cross complain against Meyers.

In Migdal v. Meyers, case no. 24SMCV03869 Mark Migdal, as an individual, sues Meyers for assault and IIED resulting from Meyers’ allegedly trying to stab Migdal approximately a month after the fire.

Moving defendants assert all four cases share a central nexus of facts, common questions of law and arise from same fire. Cheek and Ashby argue Migdal v. Meyers arises from separate facts, making its consolidation improper. The court agrees.

In Migdal v. Meyers Mark Migdal alleges Meyers threatened him with a knife following the fire. Compl. paras. 9-11. He alleges Meyers published demeaning internet posts and graffitied the property with “slumlord killer” and “landlord fire.” Compl. paras. 13-14. These allegations do not create a common nexus of facts between the first three cases, which all involve liability for the fire and resulting losses, and Mark Migdal’s case, which stems solely from his post-fire allegations against Meyers.

Defendants argue failing to consolidate all four cases could result in a risk of conflicting decisions, stating “if a jury found Meyers culpable [for the fire] in the Meyers v. Migdal matter and innocent in the Migdal v. Meyers matter, this would be an inconsistent verdict.” Reply 4:5-7.

This is unavailing. No allegations in Migdal v. Meyers turn on whether Meyers was responsible for the fire; that case alleges assault and IIED. No pleadings in Meyers v. Migdal relate to Meyer’s later alleged actions toward Mark Migdal. There is no risk of conflicting outcomes.

Defendants’ motion to consolidate GRANTED as to Meyers v. Migdal, case no. 24SMCV00907, Cheek v. Migdal, case no. 24SMCV03153, and Ashby v. Migdal, case no. 24SMCV03158.

Defendants’ motion DENIED as to Migdal v. Meyers, case no. 24SMCV03869. However, this case remains related.