Judge: Helen Zukin, Case: 22SMCV01180, Date: 2022-10-10 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22SMCV01180 Hearing Date: October 10, 2022 Dept: 207
Background
Plaintiff Kavi Virk (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against
Defendants Radical Studios, Inc., Matthew Berger, and Jesse Burger
(collectively “Defendants”) alleging fraud by Defendants in connection with two
contracts between the parties. Plaintiff brings this motion to consolidate the
instant action with a separate action currently pending with in the Los Angeles
Superior Court, case number SC129304. Defendants
oppose Plaintiff’s motion.
Legal Standard
Code
Civ. Proc. § 1048 provides “[w]hen actions involving 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.” The purpose of consolidation is to avoid unnecessary costs or delay,
avoid duplication of procedure, particularly in the proof of issues common to both
actions, and avoid inconsistent results by hearing and deciding common issues together.
(Estate of Baker (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 471, 485.) In deciding whether to
grant a motion to consolidate, the court should weigh whether the common issues
predominate over the individual issues and whether any risks of jury confusion or
prejudice to the parties outweighs the reduction in time and expense that would
result from consolidation. (Todd-Stenberg v. Shield (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th
976, 978.) The granting or denial of the motion to consolidate rests in the sound
discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed except upon a clear showing
of abuse of discretion. (See Fellner v. Steinbaum (1955) 132 Cal.App.2d 509,
511.)
“Cases may
not be consolidated unless they are in the same department.” (LASC Local Rules,
rule 3.3(g)(1).) “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.”
(Id.)
Analysis
Plaintiff seeks consolidation of
two cases currently pending in the Los Angeles Superior Court, case number
SC129304 and the instant action, case number 22SMCV01180. Case number SC129304 is currently pending before Judge Epstein in
Department R of the Santa Monica courthouse. The instant action, 22SMCV01180,
is currently pending before Judge Zukin in Department 207 of the Beverly Hills
courthouse. As set forth above, pursuant to Local Rule 3.3(g)(1), a motion to
consolidate may only be heard after the cases “have been related to a single
department, or if the cases were already assigned to that department.” Neither
scenario is present here. As the actions sought to be consolidated are pending
in different departments, Plaintiff’s motion to consolidate is procedurally
improper and is DENIED.
The
same result would follow even if this Court were to address Plaintiff’s motion
on its merits. Plaintiff has made no showing as to what, if any, issues are
common between the two actions and provides no discussion or argument as to whether the alleged common issues predominate
over the individual issues such as to make consolidation proper here. Plaintiff’s
motion is instead focused solely on what Plaintiff argues was the improper
entry of default against him in the SC129304
action and the Court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration in that action.
Indeed, Plaintiff appears to seek consolidation solely because he believes that
if the actions are consolidated the Court “must … set
a trial date to adjudicate this dispute on the merits instead of the default
judgment secured by the Plaintiffs.” (Motion at 2.) A motion to consolidate is
not the proper method by which to attack the entry of default in another
action. If Plaintiff believes default was improperly entered against him in the
SC129304, he has remedies available to him in
that action, and indeed appears to have filed an appeal in the SC129304 matter
which is currently pending with the Court of Appeal.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to
consolidate is DENIED. The Court also DENIES Defendants’ request for sanctions.
Conclusion
Plaintiff’s motion to consolidate is DENIED.