Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 20STLC01489, Date: 2023-02-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STLC01489     Hearing Date: February 14, 2023    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 Acosta’s Motion to Consolidate Related Cases, of the cases listed below, is CONTINUED TO MARCH 22, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.  At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Plaintiff must file supplemental papers addressing the issues discussed herein.  Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or 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:          None filed as of February 8, 2023.                       [   ] Late                      [X] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of February 8, 2023.                       [   ] Late                      [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On February 18, 2020, Plaintiff Yorshio Gustavo Acosta (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendants Lanette Lars (“Lars”), Coretta Moore (“Moore”), R. Reagen (“Reagen”), Donnell Woodbey (“Donnell”), Eric Woodbey (“Eric”), and Nationwide Rentals (“Nationwide”), (collectively “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. ¶¶ 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 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.)

Defendants Moore and Eric, each appearing in propria persona, filed separate Answers to the Complaint on January 3 and January 13, 2022, respectively.

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

On May 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Consolidate Related Cases, 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 Lars and Donnell, and Defendant Eric Woodbey, in propria persona, signed the Stipulation.  (Mot. p. 11.)  Defendant Moore did not sign it.  On June 21, 2022, Defendant 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 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.  (7-25-22 Minute Order.)  On the same day, the Court also granted the parties’ oral request to vacate the Non-Jury Trial scheduled for August 3, 2022.  (Ibid.)  On August 22, 2022, the Court noted that Plaintiff had not complied with the Court Order, issued on July 25, 2022, and denied Plaintiff’s Motion.  (8-22-22 Minute Order.)

On November 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Consolidate Related Cases (“Motion”).  The Motion contains a stipulation by all parties to the consolidation and designation of Acosta v. Lars, et al., Case No. 20-1152818, as the lead case. On November 17, 2022, Plaintiff filed an updated Notice of Hearing on Motion.

No opposition has been filed.

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

Plaintiffs in the following cases seek to consolidate their actions against Defendants:

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

(Mot. pp. 1-3.)  On August 13, 2021, the Court found that the cases listed above “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, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate Cases because Plaintiff had not complied with the procedures mandated by California Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a).  (8-22-22 Minute Order.)

Having reviewed the instant Motion, filed on November 9, 2022, the Court notes the following.  Plaintiff has filed the Notice in every case listed above.  The Notice contains the names of all Plaintiffs and Defendants, as well as case numbers with the lowest-numbered case listed first.  Plaintiff has filed proof that all Defendants have been served with the Motion to Consolidate, as well as an updated Notice of Hearing that lists the date of hearing.  (Mot. p. 29, 11-17-22 Notice of Hearing, p. 3.)

However, the Court finds the following deficiencies in the Notice.  First, Plaintiff has listed all parties, but has not indicated which parties have appeared in the case and the names of their respective attorneys of record, in compliance with California Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a)(1)(A)[1].

Second, the original Notice filed in all of the cases listed above does not contain the date of hearing.  Although Plaintiff has filed an updated Notice listing the date of hearing in Acosta v. Lars, et al., 20STLC01489, Plaintiff has not filed the corrected Notice in any of the other related cases listed.

For the reasons indicated above, the Court CONTINUES the hearing on the Motion.  Plaintiff is ordered to correct the Notice to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a)(1)(A) and serve the amended Notice on all parties.  Plaintiff is also ordered to file the corrected Notice in all of the cases listed for consolidation.

IV.           Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons,

Plaintiff Acosta’s Motion to Consolidate Related Cases is CONTINUED TO MARCH 22, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.  At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Plaintiff must file supplemental papers addressing the issues discussed herein. Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.