Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 23STCV17595, Date: 2023-08-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV17595    Hearing Date: October 13, 2023    Dept: 20

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kevin C. Brazile

Hearing Date:                         Friday, October 13, 2023

Case Name:                             Tailor Kelly, et al. v. Witmer Manor Partners, LP

Case No.:                                23STCV17595

Motion:                                  Motion to Consolidate and Stay Cases

Moving Party:                         Plaintiffs Tailor Kelly, et al.

Responding Party:                  Defendant Witmer Manor Partners, LP

Notice:                                    OK

Ruling:                                    The Motion to consolidate is DENIED.

Moving Party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND

            On July 26, 2023, Plaintiffs Tailor Kelly; Harlee Thames (suing by her guardian ad litem, Tailor Kelly); and Deliylahs Thames (suing by her guardian ad litem, Tailor Kelly) filed a complaint against Defendant Witmer Manor Partners, LP arising out of Plaintiffs’ tenancy with the apartment buildings owned by Defendant. Plaintiffs allege the following causes of action: (1) Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability; (2) Negligence; (3) Nuisance; (4) Breach of Quiet Enjoyment; (5) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (6) Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code section 51; (7) Anti-Harassment Statute, Cal. Civ. Code section 1940.2; and (8) Illegal or Wrongful Eviction.

            On August 4, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a notice of related case of Witmer Manor Partners, LP v. Tailor Kelly (case no. 23STUD08317).

            On July 26, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to relate, consolidate and stay of cases pending hearing of motion to consolidate.

            On August 25, 2023, the Court deemed the subject cases: 23STCV17595 and 23STUD08317 as not related because the benefits of relation were not apparent for these types of cases. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a).)

            On October 2, 2023, Defendant filed an opposition to the instant motion.

            On October 6, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a reply.

DISCUSSION

“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.” (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. (See Todd-Stenberg v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 976, 978-979.) 

This motion is defective for two reasons. First, the cases are not deemed related. “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).) The Case No. 23STUD08317, captioned Witmer Manor Partners, LP v. Tailor Kelly is in Department 93 and Case No. 23STCV17595, captioned Tailor Kelly, et al. v. Witmer Manor Partners, LP is in Department 20. Further, this Court deemed the cases not related.

Second, 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).) The Notice of Motion was not filed in Case No. 23STUD08317.

Evidentiary Objections

Defendant’s evidentiary objections to the Declaration of Christian Oronsaye is sustained in full on the grounds that the testimony lacks foundation.

Request for Judicial Notice

Defendant’s request for judicial notice is granted in full.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Motion to consolidate is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice. 

            If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.