Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 20STCV38000, Date: 2023-10-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV38000    Hearing Date: November 20, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Ahmad Ali (“Plaintiff”) 

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Sylvia Ali (“Defendant”)

I.            INTRODUCTION

This is an action arising from an alleged assault and battery. Plaintiff alleges that on or about September 7, 2019, he was in the parking lot of the 99 Cents Store located at 6235 York Blvd., Los Angeles, CA. (Complaint, ¶ 6.) Defendant allegedly assaulted Plaintiff as Plaintiff attempted to get into Defendant’s vehicle. (Id., ¶ 7.) The complaint alleges that Defendant suddenly accelerated and drove over Plaintiff’s left leg. (Id.) On October 5, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant and Does 1 to 10 alleging causes of action for assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and motor vehicle.

On October 19, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to consolidate (the “Motion”) the instant action with the case of Ahmad Ali v. Sylvia Morris aka Silvia Ali et al., LASC Case No. 23STCV12814 (the “2d Action”), which was filed on June 6, 2023, for all purposes of discovery, preparation of the record, pre-trial motions and trial. The Motion is made pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 1048.

In support of the Motion, Plaintiff contends that: (1) good cause exists to consolidate the actions in the interests of judicial economy; (2) no parties will be prejudiced with consolidation; and (3) good cause exists to support a continuance of trial and pre-trial dates.

On November 6, 2023, Defendant filed an opposition brief. On November 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed a reply brief.

Procedural Issues

Initially, the Court finds that while the memorandum of points and authorities in support of the Motion requests a trial continuance in this action, such relief was not requested in the Notice of Motion. “A notice of motion must state in the opening paragraph the nature of the order being sought and the grounds for issuance of the order.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1110(a).) Due to Plaintiff not requesting a trial continuance in the Notice of Motion, the Court will deny and disregard such request. If Plaintiff wishes to seek a trial continuance, Plaintiff may file a properly noticed motion for a trial continuance. Thus, the Court will treat the Motion solely as a motion to consolidate and will analyze it as such.

An issue also exists as to the opposition to the Motion. Defendant’s opposition is not signed. Moreover, Defendant’s sole citation in the opposition to Penal Code section 1214 is inapposite. Defendant has cited no applicable legal authority or reasoned argument to support Defendant’s contention that consolidation of this action and the 2d Action is inappropriate. Contentions are waived when a party fails to support them with reasoned argument and citations to authority. (Moulton Niguel Water Dist. v. Colombo (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1215.)

II.          JUDICIAL NOTICE

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice. (Evid. Code §§ 452, 453.)

On its own motion, the Court takes judicial notice of the entire court file in the 2d Action including the complaint in the 2d Action. (Scott v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 743, 752.)

III.    DISCUSSION

          Code Civ. Proc. § 1048(a) provides that 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.  The purpose of consolidation is to promote trial convenience and economy by avoiding duplication of procedure, particularly in the proof of issues common to both actions.  (Estate of Baker (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 471, 485.)  A consolidation of actions does not affect the rights of the parties.  (Ibid.)  Consolidation does not require identical causes of action in each case, absolute identity of the parties, or identical allegations.  (Ibid.)  Where common issues are present in two cases then consolidation is appropriate.  (Todd-Stenberg v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 976.) 

Issue No.1: Appropriateness of Consolidation

          In support of the Motion, Plaintiff’s counsel Stephen B. Mashney (“Mashney”) declares that this action and the 2d Action all arise from the incident that occurred on September 7, 2019. (Mashney Decl., ¶ 2.) The actions involve the same plaintiff, defendant, identical injuries, and a fraudulent real property transfer as a consequence of the incident. (Id.) Counsel declares that no other actions have been filed by Plaintiff against any other defendant related to the incidents, and the instant action and the 2d Action both stem from the September 7, 2019 incident. (Id., ¶ 5.)

The Court finds that consolidation of this action and the 2d Action is appropriate as both actions arise from the alleged September 7, 2019 assault of Plaintiff.  In fact, the 2d Action references this action. (Complaint in 2d Action at ¶ 5.) The 2d Action alleges that Defendant was criminally charged and convicted based on the September 7, 2019 incident and was ordered to pay restitution to Plaintiff in the amount of $92,908.87. (Id. at 2:6-10.) The complaint in the 2d Action alleges that Defendant fraudulently transferred her interest in a property located at 5994 Hayes Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90042 to evade the restitution judgment in the criminal action, and with the knowledge of the pending personal injury lawsuit in this action. (Id., ¶¶ 7, 14.) The 2d Action alleges causes of action against Defendant, Joshua Morris, Jeremy Morris, Chanelle Morris, and Gerand M. Morris 2004 Revocable Living Trust dated 8/11/2004 for: (1) fraudulent transfer pursuant to Civ. Code § 3439.04; (2) fraudulent transfer pursuant to Civ. Code § 3439.05; and (3) fraud and deceit.

Defendant provides no evidence on how: (1) she would be prejudiced if the two actions were consolidated; (2) discovery would be duplicative; or (3) how efficiency would not be served by consolidating these actions.  The two actions have common parties.  While the two actions do not contain overlapping causes of action, both actions arise from the purported September 7, 2019 assault.[1]

Moreover, all defendants in the 2d Action are represented by the same counsel, Nolan F. King, Esq., who is counsel for Defendant in this action. The proof of service as to the Motion shows that it was served on October 19, 2023, via electronic transmission, and service was effectuated on Nolan F. King, Esq. None of the other defendants in the 2d Action filed an opposition to the Motion.

The Court finds that consolidation is appropriate. The Motion is therefore granted.  

IV.     CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court therefore GRANTS the Motion and consolidates the instant action and the 2d Action.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

      Dated this 20th day of November 2023