Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 23STCV07520, Date: 2023-10-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV07520    Hearing Date: October 12, 2023    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Emmanuel Ojo (“Plaintiff”) moves for (1) consolidation of this case (23STCV07520) and Case Number 23IWSC00322 captioned Phillip Cotton, et al. v. Emmanuel Ojo (the “Small Claims lawsuit”) and (2) a stay of the small claims lawsuit in Dept. 1, Inglewood Courthouse. The motion is unopposed.

The Plaintiff’s motion to consolidate is GRANTED.    

Background

          Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants Lisa M. Barnespickett, Phillip Cotton, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, alleging causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) negligence, (3) property damage, and (4) declaratory relief.

Legal Standard

“When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court … 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 purpose of consolidation is to enhance trial court efficiency by avoiding unnecessary duplication of evidence and the danger of inconsistent adjudications. (Todd-Stenberg v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 976, 978-979.)

“Cases 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 into a single department, or if the cases were already assigned to that department.” (Super. Ct. L.A. County, Local Rules, rule 3.3(g)(1).)

“There are two types of consolidation: a complete consolidation resulting in a single action, and a consolidation of separate actions for trial. Under the former procedure, which may be utilized where the parties are identical and the causes could have been joined, the pleadings are regarded as merged, one set of findings is made, and one judgment is rendered. In a consolidation for trial, the pleadings, verdicts, findings and judgments are kept separate; the actions are simply tried together for the sake of convenience and judicial economy.” (Sanchez v. Superior Court (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 1391, 1396.) “Consolidation under Code of Civil Procedure section 1048 is permissive, and it is for the trial court to determine whether the consolidation is for all purposes or for trial only.” (Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1127, 1149.)

A Notice of Motion to consolidate cases must (1) include a list of all named parties in each case, the names of those who have appeared, and the names of their respective attorneys of record; (2) include the captions of all the cases sought to be consolidated; and (3) be filed in each case sought to be consolidated. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a)(1).)  

“An order granting or denying all or part of a motion to consolidate must be filed in each case sought to be consolidated. If the motion is granted for all purposes including trial, any subsequent document must be filed only in the lead case.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350(c).) “Unless otherwise provided in the order granting the motion to consolidate, the lowest numbered case in the consolidated case is the lead case.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350(b).)

Discussion

          In this case, the Complaint alleges that Plaintiff is the owner of an apartment located at 5338 Chariton Ave., Los Angeles, California 90056 (the “Property”). (Compl., ¶ 1.) Defendants Lisa M. Barnespickett and Phillip Cotton (collectively, “Defendants”) are former tenants of the Property. (Compl., ¶ 2.) Defendants breached the parties’ lease agreement by (among other things) damaging the Property, including spray painting its wall, allowing their dogs to urinate and poop on its carpet and flooring, and repainting the bedrooms without permission. (Compl., ¶ 31.)

          In the Small Claims lawsuit, Defendants (as plaintiffs) are suing Plaintiff (the sole defendant), alleging that Plaintiff refused to return their security deposit. (Small Claims lawsuit, Plaintiff’s Claim and Order to go to Small Claims Court, filed March 6, 2023, Item 3a.)

          On June 14, 2023, the Court entered a minute order finding that this case and the Small Claims lawsuit are related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a). The Court assigned both cases to Department 72 and designated this case as the lead case.

          Based on those allegations, the Court finds that both cases involve a common question of law or fact. Indeed, the parties are identical, and the claims could have been joined. Plaintiff’s counsel also testifies that the parties are expected to present the same evidence, witnesses, and documents in both cases. (Motion, declaration of Christian Oronsaye, ¶ 18.) Defendants have not filed any opposition indicating otherwise.

The Court also finds that Plaintiff has substantially complied with California Rules of Court, rule 3.350 by (1) serving the moving papers on all parties who have appeared in the actions, (2) attaching the proof of service to his motion, and (3) listing in his notice of motion (a) all named parties in each related case, (b) the parties who have appeared in the actions, and (c) the names of the parties’ attorneys of record. 

          A Notice of Motion must be filed in each case sought to be consolidated. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a)(1).)    Here, Plaintiff did not file a notice of the instant motion in the Small Claims lawsuit.   However, the Court exercises its discretion to overlook that technical problem, given that Plaintiff did comply with all notice requirements and no party has opposed this motion to consolidate.  Moreover, the parties should not be required to expend further resources on this procedural issue.