Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 20STLC01489, Date: 2022-08-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STLC01489     Hearing Date: August 22, 2022    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED CASES

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff Yorshio Gustavo Acosta

RESP. PARTY:         None

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

(CCP § 1048; CRC 3.350)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Yorshio Gustavo Acosta’s Motion to Consolidate Related Cases listed is DENIED.

1.     Acosta v. Lars et al., 20STLC01489

2.     Mendez Muniz v. Lars, et al., 20STLC01492

3.     Vasquez v. Lars, et al., 20STLC01494

4.     Meza v. Lars, et al., 21STLC00048

5.     Rivera v. Lars, et al., 21STLC00049

6.     Ibarra v. Lars, et al., 21STLC05469

7.     Alvarado v. Lars, et al., 21STLC05475

8.     Garcia v. Lars, et al., 21STLC05478

9.     Hidalgo v. Lars, et al., 21STLC05483

10.  Macias v. Lars, et al., 21STLC05644

SERVICE: 

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300)                 OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)                                                 OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b))                     OK

OPPOSITION:          Withdrawn on July 14, 2022.                           [   ] Late                      [   ] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of July 20, 2022                [   ] Late                      [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On February 18, 2020, Plaintiff Yorshio Gustavo Acosta (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendants Lanette Lars, Coretta Moore, R. Reagen, Donnell Woodbey, Eric Woodbey, and Nationwide Rentals (“Defendants”) for (1) breach of contract, (2) fraud, (3) fraudulent misrepresentation, (4) conversion, (5) money had and received, (6) money paid, (7) conspiracy, and (8) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.  The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff paid Defendants a $5000 “Rental Deposit” for permission to inspect the premises of a rental property.  (Compl. p. 3 ¶¶ 12-13.)  Plaintiff did not rent the property and requested the return of the Rental Deposit, as promised, but did not receive the money.  (Ibid. ¶ 14.)

On August 12, 2021, Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Motion for Order to Continue Trial, set for August 17, 2021, to a later date.  The Motion was filed on the basis that Plaintiff had discovered there were nine other individuals who had filed similar actions against the same Defendants and because Plaintiff was facing obstacles in serving Defendants.  (Mot. p. 5, Douglas Decl. ¶ 4.)  On August 13, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion in part – it advanced and vacated the trial date, but also set an Order to Show Cause hearing regarding Plaintiff’s failure to file Proof of Service showing that Defendants were served.  (8-13-21 Minute Order: Re Ex Parte Motion.)

Plaintiff concurrently filed a Notice of Related Case, listing the pending cases with similar actions.  (8-12-21 Notice of Related Case.)  On August 13, 2021, the Court deemed the listed cases related, with Plaintiff’s case designated as the lead case, and assigned all cases to Judge Katherine Chilton in Department 25 at Spring Street Courthouse.  (8-13-21 Minute Order: Re Notice of Related Cases.)

On May 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Consolidate Related Cases (“the Motion”), including a stipulation by the parties to the consolidation and designation of Acosta v. Lars, et al., Case No. 20-1152818, as the lead case.  Counsel for Plaintiffs, counsel for Defendants Lanette Lars and Donnell Woodbey, and Defendant Eric Woodbey, in propria persona, signed the Stipulation.  (Mot. p. 11.)  Defendant Coretta Moore did not sign.  On June 21, 2022, Defendant Correta Moore, in propria persona, filed a Motion to Deny Motion to Consolidate Related Cases (i.e. Opposition), but withdrew her filing on July 14, 2022, and stated that she no longer opposes the Motion.  (7-14-22 Notice of Withdrawal p. 2.)

On May 25, 2022, Defendants Nationwide Rentals and R. Reagan were dismissed from the action.  (5-25-22 Minute Order.)

On July 25, 2022, the Court continued the hearing on the Motion to allow Plaintiff additional time to comply with the California Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a) and file a proper Notice of Motion.  On the same day, the Court also granted the parties’ oral request to vacate the Non-Jury Trial scheduled for August 3, 2022.

As of the date of this hearing, Plaintiff has not filed any additional papers.

II.              Legal Standard

California Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a) states in relevant part:

(1)   A notice of motion to consolidate must:

(A)  List all named parties in each case, the names of those who have appeared, and the names of their respective attorneys of record;

(B)  Contain the captions of all the cases sought to be consolidated, with the lowest-numbered case shown first; and

            (C) Be filed in each case sought to be consolidated.

(2)   The motion to consolidate:

(A)  Is 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;

(B)  Must be served on all attorneys of record and all non-represented parties in all of the cases sought to be consolidated; and

            (C) Must have a proof of service filed as part of the motion.

            (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a)).

Also, the consolidation statute, Code of Civil Procedure § 1048, states in relevant part:

(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.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 1048(a).)

The granting or denial of the motion to consolidate rests in the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed except upon a clear showing of abuse of discretion.  (See Fellner v. Steinbaum (1955) 132 Cal.App.2d 509, 511.)

III.            Discussion

Plaintiff Yorshio Gustavo Acosta and Plaintiffs in the following cases seek to consolidate their actions against Defendants:

1.     Mendez Muniz v. Lars, et al., 20STLC01492

2.     Vasquez v. Lars, et al., 20STLC01494

3.     Meza v. Lars, et al., 21STLC00048

4.     Rivera v. Lars, et al., 21STLC00049

5.     Ibarra v. Lars, et al., 21STLC05469

6.     Alvarado v. Lars, et al., 21STLC05475

7.     Garcia v. Lars, et al., 21STLC05478

8.     Hidalgo v. Lars, et al., 21STLC05483

9.     Macias v. Lars, et al., 21STLC05644

(Mot., pp. 1-2.)  Indeed, all ten actions are “related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a).”  (8-13-21 Minute Order Re: Notice of Related Case.)

On July 25, 2022, the Court found that “the consolidation of the cases is proper and in the interest of judicial economy.”  (7-25-22 Minute Order.)  However, Plaintiff had not filed a proper Notice of Motion and thus, had not complied with the procedures mandated by California Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a).  (Ibid. at pp. 5-6.)  Thus, the Court continued the hearing on the Motion to allow Plaintiff additional time to file and serve a compliant Notice of Motion.

As of the date of the continued hearing, Plaintiff has not filed any additional papers.

Given that Plaintiff has not complied with the California Rules of Court and this Court’s order, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.

IV.           Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Yorshio Gustavo Acosta’s Motion to Consolidate Related Cases is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.