Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 21STLC03483, Date: 2023-03-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC03483     Hearing Date: March 27, 2023    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED CASES

MOVING PARTY:   Defendant Pamela Azmi Andrew

RESP. PARTY:         None

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

(CCP § 1048; CRC 3.350)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Pamela Azmi Andrew’s Motion to Consolidate Related Cases, of the cases listed below, is GRANTED and the following actions are HEREBY CONSOLIDATED FOR ALL PURPOSES.

1.     Cleredene Sheriff v. Pamela Azmi Andrew, 21STLC03483

2.     Cleredene Sheriff v. Pamela Azmi Andrew, 22STLC08663

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 March 23, 2023.               [   ] Late                      [X] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of March 23, 2023.               [   ] Late                      [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

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”).

            On February 27, 2023, the Court continued the hearing on the Motion to provide Defendant with an opportunity to correct deficiencies in the Motion.  (2-27-23 Minute Order.)

            On the same day, Defendant filed supplemental papers.

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

Defendant moves to consolidate the following cases:

1.     Cleredene Sheriff v. Pamela Azmi Andrew, 21STLC03483

2.     Cleredene Sheriff v. Pamela Azmi Andrew, 22STLC08663

(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, on February 27, 2023, the Court noted that the Notice of Motion did not list the names of the attorneys of record for each party and erroneously listed Judge Mark Windham as the presiding judge in Case No. 22STLC08663.  (2-27-23 Minute Order; Mot. pp. 1-2.)  Moreover, the Court found that the moving papers were not timely served on Plaintiff, as they were emailed to Plaintiff’s counsel on February 6, 2023, instead of January 31, 2023, as required by § 1005(b).  (Ibid.)  For these reasons, the Court continued the hearing and ordered Defendant to serve and file a corrected Notice in all of the cases listed for consolidation.  (Ibid.)

On the same day, Defendant filed an Amended Notice and Motion.  The Court finds that the Amended Notice complies with California Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a) as it lists the names of the parties, their representatives, and the cases to be consolidated.  The Amended Notice has been filed in all cases listed for consolidation.  Defendant has also filed Proof of Electronic Service of the moving papers.

The Court finds that all requirements for consolidation have been satisfied.  Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED.

IV.           Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons,

Defendant Pamela Azmi Andrew’s Motion to Consolidate Related Cases, of the cases listed below, is GRANTED and the following actions are HEREBY CONSOLIDATED FOR ALL PURPOSES.

3.     Cleredene Sheriff v. Pamela Azmi Andrew, 21STLC03483

4.     Cleredene Sheriff v. Pamela Azmi Andrew, 22STLC08663

Moving party is ordered to give notice.