Judge Gary Y. Tanaka, Case 21TRCV00225 2023-01-25 Tentative Ruling

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT

Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka Wednesday, January 25, 2023

Department B Calendar No. 10

Plaintiffs’ Complaint was filed on March 24, 2021. Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint was filed on May 9, 2022. Plaintiffs allege the following facts. Plaintiffs referred a legal action to Defendants. Defendants agreed to pay Plaintiffs 40 percent of all attorneys’ fees. Defendants settled the case for $380,000.00 and received $128,666.67 in attorneys’ fees. However, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs the referral fee. Plaintiffs allege the following causes of action: 1. Breach of Written Contract; 2. Common Counts.

The trial court has discretion to consolidate actions involving common questions of law or fact. Code Civ. Proc., §1048. The purpose of consolidation is “to promote trial convenience and economy by avoiding duplication of procedure, particularly in the proof of issues common to both actions.” Estate of Baker (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 471, 485.

The court generally considers the following: (1) timeliness of the motion, i.e., whether granting consolidation would delay the trial of any of the cases involved; (2) complexity, i.e., whether joining the actions involved would make the trial too confusing or complex for a jury; and (3) prejudice, i.e, whether consolidation would adversely affect the rights of any party. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1956) 47 Cal.2d 428, 430–31; Todd-Stenberg v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 976, 978-79.

Plaintiff moves to consolidate the instant action with related action, Jossen v. Carroll Kelly, et al., Case No. 22LBCV00057. The motion is made on the ground that the actions have been deemed related, that the same issues and facts underlie both actions, and that it would be a waste of resources and expenses if two separate trials proceeded.

The Court finds that convenience and economy will not be fostered by consolidation of the two cases. Consolidation will not avoid duplication of resources and the evidence that will be required to prove or disprove the claims in both cases are not common to both actions.

The instant action involves a dispute between two law firms in which Plaintiff contends that it was not given a referral fee after settlement of the underlying action pursuant to an agreement between the parties. As to the related action, 22LBCV00057, while it appears that the same underlying fee agreement with the Rameys has been alleged, the Defendant is a completely different law firm. It appears the Defendant in that action was the opposing counsel in the underlying action. However, it appears that the basis for liability against the Defendant in that action is not the underlying fee referral agreement purportedly with the Rameys, but instead on the failure to recognize a lien when issuing settlement funds in that underlying action.

In addition, the instant action has a trial date of October 17, 2023. The related action does not have a trial date at this time, and there is a potential for delay of the trial of the instant action if the cases are deemed consolidated. Finally, joining the actions would make the trial too confusing for a jury, as the claims and defenses asserted in the underlying action differ from the claims and defenses asserted in the related action.

Therefore, the Court finds that the purpose of consolidation - to promote trial convenience and economy by avoiding duplication of procedure, particularly in the proof of issues common to both actions – is not present in the actions.