Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 22NWCV00388, Date: 2024-02-14 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV00388, Date: 2024-02-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV00388 Hearing Date: April 9, 2024 Dept: C

Erik Moreno vs Martha Moreno

Case No.: 22NWCV00388

Hearing Date: April 9, 2024 @ 10:30 AM

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Erik Moreno’s Motion to Consolidate is DENIED.

Defendant to give notice.

Background

Plaintiff Erik Moreno (“Plaintiff”) originally filed a complaint in this Court on July 12, 2016 against Defendant Martha Moreno (“Defendant”) for Quiet Title to real properties commonly known as 10231 Trabuco Street, Bellflower, California 90706 and 11829 Arkansas Street (collectively “the Properties”). Plaintiff dismissed his complaint against Defendant on August 11, 2021. On January 29, 2019, Defendant filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiff for: 1. Breach of Fiduciary Duty 2. Conversion 3. Waste 4. Unjust Enrichment 5. Constructive Trust 6. Intentional Misrepresentation 7. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and 8. Declaratory Relief. Default was entered against Plaintiff on May 10, 2019 as to the cross-complaint and judgment was entered on May 10, 2022. Plaintiff has appealed the default. Plaintiff then filed this Complaint on May 20, 2022 against Defendant which contains many of the same allegations as his previous lawsuit. Defendant answered on June 20, 2022 and then filed a demurrer on September 26, 2022.

Plaintiff now seeks to consolidate this case (22NWCV00388) with the unlawful detainer actions (23NWUD00749 and 23NWUD00751) brought against Erik and Raul Moreno with regard to the described property located at 10231 Trabuco Street, Bellflower, CA, 90706.

Legal Standard

Code Civ. Proc.,¿§ 1048, subd.¿(a) states, “[w]hen 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);¿see also¿Spector v. Superior Court¿(1961) 55 Cal.2d 839, 844 [Two actions that present essentially the same, or overlapping, issues should be consolidated and disposed of as a single proceeding].)¿¿¿

Consolidation, however, is not a matter of right; it rests solely within the sound discretion of the trial judge. (Fisher v. Nash Bldg. Co.¿(1952) 113 Cal.App.2d 397, 402.)¿ Actions may be thoroughly “related” in the sense of having common questions of law or fact, and still not be “consolidated,” if the trial court, in the sound exercise of its discretion, chooses not to do so.¿ (Askew v. Askew¿(1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 942, 964.)¿ It is not abuse of discretion to deny motion for consolidation of actions where parties in each action are different or issues are different.¿ (See¿Muller v. Robinson¿(1959) 174 Cal App 2d 511, 515.)¿ On the other hand, actions may be consolidated in the discretion of the trial court whenever it can be done without prejudice to a substantial right.¿ (Carpenson¿v.¿Najarian¿(1967) 254 Cal.App.2d 856, 862.)

In deciding whether to grant a motion to consolidate, the court should weigh whether the common issues predominate over the individual issues and whether any risks of jury confusion or prejudice to the parties outweighs the reduction in time and expense that would result from consolidation.¿ (Todd-Stenberg v. Shield¿(1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 976, 978.)¿

Discussion

Plaintiff contends that the actions should be consolidated because there are common questions of law and fact concerning the cloud on title and right of possession. Consolidation will save judicial resources.

Defendant Martha Moreno contends that the actions do not share common questions of law and fact. Defendant Moreno argues that she sold and conveyed title to the properties to Heydi Caceres, the plaintiff in both unlawful detainer actions. In those actions, Plaintiff has been evicted from the subject property.

Defendant argues these claims should be barred due to res judicata and the unlawful detainer actions are now moot, given the evictions. Under these circumstances, the Court declines to consolidate this matter with the unlawful detainer actions.

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.