Judge Katherine Chilton, Case 21STLC03483 2023-02-27 Tentative Ruling

Defendant Pamela Azmi Andrew’s Motion to Consolidate is CONTINUED TO MARCH 27, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Defendant must file supplemental papers addressing the issues discussed herein. Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

On May 4, 2021, Plaintiff Cleredene Sheriff (“Plaintiff”), in propria persona, filed an action against Defendant Pamela Azmi Andrew (“Defendant”) for breach of contract and common counts. On June 11, 2021, Defendant, in propria persona, filed an Answer to the Complaint.

On December 8, 2022, Defendant filed a Substitution of Attorney, indicating that she was being represented by Justin T. Battle, Esq. On December 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Substitution of Attorney, indicating that she was being represented by Brett G. Moore.

On December 29, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Related Case, stating that Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 22STLC08633 is related to the instant action because it involves the same parties and similar claims, arises from the same dispute over Defendant’s alleged appropriation of Plaintiff’s deceased daughter’s funds, and “is certain to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges.” (12-29-22 Notice of Related Case.)

On January 4, 2023, the Court found that the cases “21STLC03483 and 22STLC08663, are related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a)” and “21STLC03483 is the lead case.” (1-4-23 Minute Order.) Both cases were assigned to Judge Katherine Chilton in Department 25 of the Spring Street Courthouse. (Ibid.) The Court also granted Defendant’s Ex Parte Application and Motion to Continue Trial and continued the trial date to April 11, 2023. (Ibid.)

On February 8, 2023, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Consolidate (“Motion”).

(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

(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

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.

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.)

(Mot. p. 2.) Defense counsel argues that “Case No. 21STLC03483 and Case No. 22STLC08663 involve common questions of law and fact relating to any agreement between Defendant and Plaintiff’s now deceased daughter, for which Plaintiff brings both suits as successor-in-interest.” (Battle Decl.)

On January 4, 2023, the Court found that cases “21STLC03483 and 22STLC08663, are related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a)” and “21STLC03483 is the lead case.” (1-4-23 Minute Order.) Both cases were assigned to Judge Katherine Chilton in Department 25 of the Spring Street Courthouse. (Ibid.) Accordingly, the Court finds that the consolidation of these two cases is proper and would be in the interest of judicial economy.

However, having reviewed the instant Motion, the Court notes the following deficiencies in the Notice of Motion. Defendant has failed to list the names of the attorneys of record for each party and has erroneously listed Judge Mark Windham as the presiding judge in Case No. 22STLC08663. (Mot. pp. 1-2.)

Moreover, the Court finds that the moving papers were not timely served on Plaintiff. Defendant has filed Proof of Service indicating that the Motion and supporting papers were served on Plaintiff on February 6, 2023, via email to Plaintiff’s counsel. (2-8-23 Proof of Service.) According to Code of Civil Procedure § 1005(b), “all moving and supporting papers shall be served and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing.” Moreover, “if the notice is served by facsimile transmission, express mail, or another method of delivery providing for overnight delivery, the required 16-day period of notice before the hearing shall be increased by two calendar days.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 1005(b).) Here, the moving papers were emailed to Plaintiff’s counsel on February 6, 2023, instead of January 31, 2023, as required by § 1005(b).

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

[1] Code of Civil Procedure § 1005(b) states that “all moving and supporting papers shall be served and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing” with an additional two calendar days in case of service by electronic transmission. Here, Plaintiff was served with the moving papers by electronic transmission on February 6, 2023, instead of January 31, 2023.