Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 24NNCV03026, Date: 2024-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NNCV03026    Hearing Date: December 6, 2024    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations in the 24NNCV03026 Action

On July 24, 2024, Plaintiff Adena Investment LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed an unlawful detainer complaint against Defendants Jose Prado, Adelina Prado, and Does 1-10, inclusive in Adena Investment LLC v. Jose Prado, et al., LASC Case No. 24NNCV03026 (the “Prado Action”).

            Plaintiff alleges that it is the owner of the premises located at 357 B Adena Street, Pasadena, California 91104 (the “Premises”). (Compl., ¶ 1.) Plaintiff alleges that the parties entered into a written lease agreement on or about September 1, 2017. (Compl., ¶ 6; Ex. A.) Plaintiff issued a written Notice of Termination of Tenancy to Defendants Jose and Adelina Prado on April 18, 2024; however, Defendants remain in possession of the Premises without Plaintiff’s consent. (Compl., ¶¶ 9, 10; Ex. B.) The complaint alleges a single cause of action for unlawful detainer.

B.     Relevant Background

On August 7, 2024, Defendants Jose and Adelina Prado filed an answer in the Prado Action.

On September 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed and served a notice of related case seeking to relate the Prado Action with the following actions: (1) Adena Investment LLC v. Francisco Hernandez, et al., LASC Case No. 24NNCV03024 (the “Hernandez Action”); (2) Adena Investment LLC v. Esteban Chaco, et al., LASC Case No. 24NNCV03064 (the “Chaco Action”); (3) Adena Investment LLC v. Armando Torres, et al., LASC Case No. 24NNCV03082 (the “Torres Action”); and (4) Adena Investment LLC v. Jaime Balderas, et al., LASC Case No. 24NNCV03097 (the “Balderas Action”).

The Hernandez, Chaco, and Torres actions were all filed on July 24, 2024. The Balderas Action was filed on July 25, 2024.

Initially, the Court notes that only the Balderas Action is pending in this department. The Hernandez Action, Chaco Action, and Torres Actions are all currently pending other departments.

C.     Motion on Calendar

On November 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to deem cases related and to consolidate cases. Plaintiff seeks an order deeming the Prado Action, Hernandez Action, Chaco Action, Torres Action, and Balderas Action as related, and also seeks an order consolidating such cases. Plaintiff requests that the Prado Action be deemed the lead and controlling matter. 

The Court is not in receipt of an opposition brief. According to the proof of service filed with the motion, only counsel for Defendants Jose Prado and Adelina Prado was served with the motion. Upon further review, the Court notes that the named defendants in each of the actions are all represented by the same counsel, which is the Law Office of Alberto Munoz. Thus, the Court deems that all defendants have received proper notice of the motion given that they are all represented by the same counsel.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

            Plaintiff requests judicial notice of: (1) the complaint filed in the Hernandez Action; (2) the complaint filed in the Chaco Action; (3) the complaint filed in the Torres Action; (4) the compliant filed in the Balderas Action; (5) the answer filed in the Hernandez Action; (6) the answer filed in the Chaco Action; (7) the answer filed in the Torres Action; (8) the answer filed in the Balderas Action; and (9) the webpage printed from the City of Pasadena Rent Stabilization Department explaining Measure H. The request is granted. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, 453.)

DISCUSSION

A.    Applicable Law/Legal Standard

            Cases are related when they (1) involve the same parties and are based on the same or similar claims, (2) arise from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact, (3) involve claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the same property, or (4) are likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a).)

            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 court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy, may order a separate trial of any cause of action, including a cause of action asserted in a cross-complaint, or of any separate issue or of any number of causes of action or issues, preserving the right of a trial by jury required by the Constitution or a statute of this state or of the United States.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (b).)

            A motion to consolidate “[i]s deemed a single motion for the purpose of determining the appropriate filing fee, but memorandums, declarations, and other supporting papers must be filed only in the lowest numbered case.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a)(2)(A).) Moreover, a motion to consolidate “[m]ust be served on all attorneys of record and all nonrepresented partes in all of the cases sought to be consolidated.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a)(2)(B).)¿¿

            There are two types of consolidation. (Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1127, 1147.) There is “a consolidation for purposes of trial only, where the two actions remain otherwise separate; and a complete consolidation or consolidation for all purposes, where the two actions are merged into a single proceeding under one case number and result in only one verdict or set of findings and one judgment.” (Ibid., citations omitted.)¿¿

Los Angeles County Court Rules, Rule 3.3(g)(1) provides that “[c]ases may not be consolidated unless they are in the same department. A motion to consolidate two or more cases may be noticed and heard after the cases, initially filed in different departments, have been related in a single department, or if the cases were already assigned to that department.”

B.     Appropriateness of Relating the Cases

The Court has reviewed the complaints filed in the Prado Action, the Hernandez Action, the Chaco Action, the Torres Action, and the Balderas Action. The Court notes that all of the actions concern premises located on Adena Street in Pasadena, CA, which are all allegedly owned by Plaintiff. Further, each of the complaints alleges that a written notice of termination of tenancy was issued to each of the respective defendants on the grounds that Plaintiff intended to withdraw the premises from the rental market. Moreover, each complaint alleges that Plaintiff complied with all the relevant provisions of the California Tenant Protection Act and the Pasadena Fair and Equitable Housing Charter Amendment.

While there is not complete identity of the parties and different premises are at issue, the Court finds that each of the five actions arise from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a)(2).) Here, in each of the actions, the Court will have to ascertain whether each notice to terminate tenancy was valid and whether Plaintiff complied with the California Tenant Protection Act and the Pasadena Fair and Equitable Housing Charter Amendment. Further, it follows that not relating the actions runs the likelihood of substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a)(4).)

Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request to relate the Prado Action, the Hernandez Action, the Chaco Action, the Torres Action, and the Balderas Action under California Rules of Court, Rule 3.300(a)(2) and 3.300(a)(4).

C.    Appropriateness of Consolidating the Cases

Here, the Court finds that consolidation of the five actions is appropriate. The Court finds that given that the complaints in each of the actions concern common issues of law and fact, the Court finds that consolidation would promote efficiency and economy. The defendants in each of the actions share the same counsel. Moreover, the cases share common factual allegations.

Moreover, given that the instant motion is unopposed, the Court notes that the lack of opposition “may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion.” (Cal. R. Ct., rule 8.54(c).)

The Court therefore GRANTS Plaintiff’s request to consolidate the Prado Action, the Hernandez Action, the Chaco Action, the Torres Action, and the Balderas Action. The Court deems the Prado Action (LASC Case No. 24NNCV03026) as the lead case.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Plaintiff Adena Investment LLC’s motion to deem cases related and to consolidate cases is GRANTED.   

Plaintiff shall provide notice of this order.

DATED:  December 6, 2024                                      ___________________________

                                                                              John Kralik

                                                                              Judge of the Superior Court