Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 22STCV33513, Date: 2023-02-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV33513    Hearing Date: February 7, 2023    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants Runyon NKMS, LLC and Gary Pagar (collectively, “Defendants”)

The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers.

BACKGROUND

            This action arises out of a landlord/tenant relationship.  Plaintiff’s complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges: (1) negligence; (2) nuisance; (3) trespass; (4) violation of Los Angeles Municipal Code; (5) violation of Civil Code section 1940.2; (6) violation of Penal Code section 632; (7) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200; (8) breach of written contract; (9) declaratory relief; (10) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (11) negligent infliction of emotional distress. 

            On December 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to consolidate (the “Motion”).  The Motion seeks to consolidate this matter with the unlawful detainer action pending in Department 91 entitled Runyon NKMS, LLC v. Moshe Wilker, LASC Case No. 22STUD08342 (the “Unlawful Detainer Action”), or, in the alternative, stay the proceedings in the Unlawful Detainer action.  Plaintiff argues that this case should be consolidated with the Unlawful Detainer Action because they involve the same parties and underlying facts. 

DISCUSSION

Under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1048, subdivision (a), when actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, the court may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions, order all the actions consolidated, and make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.  (CCP § 1048, subd. (a).)  The purpose of consolidation is merely 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.)  A consolidation of actions does not affect the rights of the parties.  (Id.)  Consolidation does not require identical causes of action in each case, absolute identity of the parties, or identical allegations.  (Id.)  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 outweigh the reduction in time and expense that would result from consolidation.  (See Todd-Stenberq v. Shield (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 976, 978.)  Actions may be thoroughly “related” in the sense of having common questions of law or fact, and still not be consolidated, if the trial court, in the sound exercise of its discretion, chooses not to do so.¿ (Askew v. Askew¿(1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 942, 964.)¿ It is not abuse of discretion to deny motion for consolidation of actions where parties in each action are different or issues are different.¿ (See¿Muller v. Robinson¿(1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 511, 515.)¿  On the other hand, actions may be consolidated in the discretion of the trial court whenever it can be done without prejudice to a substantial right.¿ (Carpenson¿v.¿Najarian¿(1967) 254 Cal.App.2d 856, 862.) 

            On December 5, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Related Case that identified the Unlawful Detainer Action as a related case.  On December 13, 2022, the Court determined that this action and the Unlawful Detainer Action are not related within the meaning of California Rules of Court (“CRC “) rule 3.300(a).

CRC, rule 3.300(h)(1)(D) provides that in the event that the cases listed in the notice are not ordered related under CRC, rule 3.300 (h)(1)(A)-(C), any party in any of the cases listed in the notice may file a motion to have the cases related.  (CRC, r. 3.300(h)(1)(D).)  The motion must be filed with the presiding judge or the judge designated by the presiding judge.  (Id.)

Under Local Rule 3.3(g)(1), cases may not be consolidated unless they are in the same department.  (LASC r. 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.)  Under Local Rule 3.3(f)(3), if the judge designated under CRC, rule 3.300(h)(1)(A)-(C) does not order related any of the cases set forth in the Notice of Related Cases, a party’s motion to have the cases related shall be heard in Department 1 if the cases are all pending in the Central District or are pending in two or more different districts.  (LASC r. 3.3(f)(3).) 

            The Court deemed that this action and the Unlawful Detainer Action are not related.  The Unlawful Detainer Action remains assigned to Department 91 and Plaintiff has not filed a motion to have the cases related with the presiding judge.  The Court therefore DENIES the Motion in its entirety.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

In consideration of the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Court¿strongly¿encourages that appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by LACourtConnect if the parties do not submit on the tentative.¿¿If you instead intend to make an appearance in person at Court on this matter, you must send an email by 2 p.m. on the last Court day before the scheduled date of the hearing to¿SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org¿stating your intention to appear in person.¿ The Court will then inform you by close of business that day of the time your hearing will be held. The time set for the hearing may be at any time during that scheduled hearing day, or it may be necessary to schedule the hearing for another date if the Court is unable to accommodate all personal appearances set on that date.¿ This rule is necessary to ensure that adequate precautions can be taken for proper social distancing.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar. 

  Dated this 7th day of February 2023