Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 22AHCV00949, Date: 2024-02-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV00949    Hearing Date: March 20, 2024    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:      March 20, 2024                                               TRIAL DATE: No date set.

CASE:                         DAVE BARELA, an individual, dba JD & ASSOCIATES, v. JIE WANG, an individual; KIKO JIA LIU aka JIAQI LIU, an individual; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive. 

CASE NO.:                 23AHCV00006

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Dave Barela

RESPONDING PARTY:      Defendants Kiko Jia Liu and Jie Wang

SERVICE:                              Filed February 7, 2024

OPPOSITION:                       Filed March 7, 2024

REPLY:                                   Filed March 14, 2024

RELIEF REQUESTED

             Plaintiff moves for an order consolidating two related cases: case number 22AHCV00949 and case number 23AHCV00006.

BACKGROUND

             This case arises out of Plaintiff Dave Barela’s claim that Defendant Jie Wang owes an outstanding debt. Plaintiff filed this complaint on January 3, 2023.

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s motion for an order consolidating the cases is GRANTED.

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff moves for an order consolidating two related actions. The first action is case number 22AHCV00949 (“Lead Case”) and involves Plaintiff’s contract claims, which he acquired through assignment from Zhenjiang Li, against Defendant Kiko Jia Liu for money paid for ownership interest in a business known as Happy Pet. The other case is case number 23AHCV00006 (“Related Case”), which is brought by Plaintiff against Defendants Kiko Jia Liu and Jie Wang. Plaintiff filed the related case after assignment from Zhenjiang Li and Diyang Li and involves Plaintiff’s claim that Wang owes over $500,000 for a loan for the purchase of property.

            “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, subd. (a).)

            The two cases were ordered related on June 8, 2023. Additionally, both cases have the same Plaintiff and name Kiko Jia Liu as a defendant. However, the related case also names Jie Wang as a Defendant. The two cases, while both sounding in contract, appear to stem from separate factual allegations.

            In opposition, Defendants argue that the cases should not be consolidated. Defendants first argue that Jie Wang would be prejudiced because he is not named in any of the allegations pertaining to Happy Pet. However, Wang fails to argue or establish how he would face prejudice, either procedurally or substantively. Defendants also argue that the cases would cause confusion to a jury. Defendants’ position is speculative and rejected. Although the cases do stem from separate allegations, the claims underlying each case are not complex nor do they present complicated legal theories or fact patterns that would cause confusion.

            Here, common facts exist in regard to Defendants’ interactions with Plaintiff’s assignor and both cases sound in contract. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion for an order consolidating the cases is granted.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion for an order consolidating the cases is GRANTED.

Dated:   March 20, 2024                                             ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court