Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 20STCV34839, Date: 2022-10-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV34839    Hearing Date: October 14, 2022    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

HOA’s motion to consolidate is GRANTED.

            On 9/11/2020, Adi Gordana filed suit against California Village Homeowners Association of Tarzana, Inc. (HOA), Allen Tubi, Cvetelina Oganyan, Elnur Aydinov, Alfred Garrett, and Molly Kossi, alleging: (1) breach of covenants, conditions, and restrictions; (2) breach of fiduciary duty; and (3) negligence.

            The  HOA then filed a cross-complaint against Darin Garrett dbs Jakes Roofing and Coatings (Jakes) and GAF Materials, LLC (GAF). On 6/21/2022, GAF substituted Icon Realty Services, Inc. for Roe 1.

            On 2/25/2022, the HOA retained separate counsel and filed a second action against Darin Garrett dbs Jakes Roofing and Coatings (Jakes) and GAF Materials, LLC (GAF) (All Roof Action). The All Roof Action was assigned case number 22STCV04047, and it is currently assigned to Department A, in the Van Nuys branch of the Superior Court, before Judge Huey P. Cotton.

            Now, the HOA seeks to consolidate this action with the All Roof Action. 

Discussion

            Defendants argue that this action and the All Roof Action should be consolidated.

California Code of Civil Procedure (C.C.P.) § 1048 provides for consolidation of proceedings and states as follows:

 (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.

(b) 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 trial by jury required by the Constitution or a statute of this state or of the United States.

            Here, HOA argues that consolidation is appropriate here because common issues of law and fact predominate between the two pending actions, and it will serve the interests of judicial economy.

            As to the first contention, HOA notes that “[e]ach deals directly with the roofing work performed at the subject property, and the two cases include many of the same parties, involves substantially similar claims and, ultimately, substantially similar defenses and facts to be decided should the matters proceed to trial. Failure to consolidate the matters would raise a substantial risk of conflicting results and inconsistent result.” (Motion, 4: 10-14.)

            As to the second contention, “Testimony by many of the same witnesses are likely to be required in both actions, and consolidation and coordination of discovery between the two matters will help to eliminate possible duplication of effort and provide a more orderly discovery process. This will help to eliminate duplication of costs to the parties and inconvenience to witnesses.” (Motion, 4: 15-18.)

            The Court agrees. This decision is reinforced by the fact that Cross-Defendant Darin Garrett dba Jakes Roofing and Coatings filed a notice of non-opposition.

            While Plaintiff opposed this motion, Plaintiff’s argument focuses on unit-specific allegations, despite Plaintiff’s broader allegations about the project as a whole. For example, as noted by HOA in reply, Plaintiff’s own Complaint alleges that the  HOA breached its “fiduciary duties to condominium owners at the Building, including Gordana …” (Complaint, p. 6, line 15), by failing to take actions to “ensure roof repairs … were completed in a timely and workmanlike manner.” (Complaint at page 6, line 18).) As such, Plaintiff’s claims are based on allegations that HOA breached duties owed to all condominium owners in their response to the roofing leaks project overall. This also means there is a risk of inconsistent rulings, given that the jury here could conclude that there was no breach of duty by the HOA in its response to the roofing leaks project while the jury in the All Roof Action could conclude there was such a breach, or vise verse.

Finally, Plaintiff herself argues that “the complaint in the related action [is] largely a duplicate of cross-claims asserted against Jakes and GAF in this [Gordana] action.” (Opp. 2: 17-19.) This reinforces the conclusion that there is substantial overlap in the facts of these two actions with a risk of inconsistent rulings if tried separately.  

            Based on the foregoing, HOA’s motion to consolidate is granted.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  October    , 2022

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. 

            Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances.  Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk.  The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.  Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.