TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant/Cross-Complainant 1155 Angelo Dr LLC’s Motion to Consolidate is DENIED.

Defendant/Cross-Complainant 1155 Angelo Dr LLC’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Cross-Complaint is DENIED.

Defendant/Cross-Complainant 1155 Angelo Dr LLC to give notice. 

REASONING

Defendant/Cross-Complainant 1155 Angelo Dr LLC’s Motion to Consolidate

The trial court has discretion to consolidate actions involving common questions of law or fact. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a).) 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.) 

In deciding whether to consolidate actions, the Court generally considers the following factors: (1) timeliness of the motion, i.e., whether granting consolidation would delay the trial of any of the cases involved; (2) complexity, i.e., whether joining the actions involved would make the trial too confusing or complex for a jury; and (3) prejudice, i.e., whether consolidation would adversely affect the rights of any party. (See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1956) 47 Cal.2d 428, 430-431; Todd-Stenberg v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 976, 978-979.)

Defendant/Cross-Complainant 1155 Angelo Dr LLC (“Angelo LLC”) moves the Court for an order consolidating the present action with Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 22SMCV01710 (Westlake Investments XXXV, LLC v. All-Powerful Plumbing) and American Arbitration Association (AAA) Case No. 01-22-0000-5145 (1155 Angelo Dr LLC v. SCG Development Company). This action has been deemed related to Case No. 22SMCV01710, and both cases are currently pending in this department.

Angelo LLC argues that the Court has the discretion to consolidate superior court actions with arbitration proceedings, and consolidation is proper here because the actions are based on the same facts, specifically the construction and renovation work performed by the general contractors and subcontractors on the property at 1155 Angelo Drive in Beverly Hills, consolidation will conserve resources and preclude inconsistent rulings, and no party will be prejudiced by consolidation. Plaintiff SCG Development Group, Inc. (“SCG Development”) opposes the motion on the ground that Angelo LLC waived its right to contest arbitrability, and third-party defendants are not signatories to the arbitration provision.

As a procedural matter, Angelo LLC has not provided the Court with a copy of the pleadings in the other two actions, and while the Court may take judicial notice of the pleadings in Case No. 22SMCV01710 on its own motion (Evid. Code, § 472, subd. (d)), it has no evidence upon which it may determine that the arbitration action arises out of the same facts, and counsel’s statements to this effect are insufficient to inform the Court’s analysis in this regard. Nonetheless, SCG Development does not dispute that all three actions arise out of the same facts, so the Court assumes, for the purposes of this motion, that all three actions are based on the same facts. However, the Court lacks a basis to conclude that consolidation is proper here.

First, while the present action and Case No. 22SMCV01710 involve many of the same parties, the arbitration action involves only two parties, one of whom is only a party to one of the court actions, and Angelo LLC has failed to provide the Court with a basis upon which the Court may determine whether the case should be before this case instead of in arbitration. Second, the Court cannot engage in a meaningful analysis as to whether consolidation is proper where Angelo LLC does not give the Court all pleadings in the action or provide anything more than conclusory statements that consolidation is proper. Should all parties in the three actions be amenable to arbitration, it could be proper for an arbitrator to consolidate the actions in a single arbitration action, but it appears SCG Development seeks to litigate its action before this Court. Angelo LLC also fails to explain why it seeks to now send the arbitration action it filed to be litigated before this Court, which tends to indicate that Angelo is simply seeking to change litigation tactics for reasons not readily apparent in the motion. As to the two court actions, Angelo LLC has focused its motion and reply on the arbitration action without providing sufficient argument as to why the two court actions should be consolidated, and the Court will not order consolidation based on conclusory statements. Accordingly, Defendant/Cross-Complainant 1155 Angelo Dr LLC’s Motion to Consolidate is DENIED.

Defendant/Cross-Complainant 1155 Angelo Dr LLC’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Cross-Complaint

Angelo LLC also moves the Court for leave to file a First Amended Cross-Complaint in this action to allow all the parties’ claims to proceed in a coordinated and efficient fashion in a single case before this Court, to avoid the need for Angelo LLC and SCG Development to litigate their claims in duplicative actions before this Court and in arbitration, and to reduce the risk of inconsistent judgments.

While “[t]he policy favoring amendment is so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified,” and “[l]eave to amend should be denied only where the facts are not in dispute, and the nature of the plaintiff’s claim is clear, but under substantive law, no liability exists and no amendment would change the result” (Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428, internal quotation marks and citations omitted), it appears that Angelo LLC seeks to amend its pleading based on a proposed ruling from the Court that the present action is consolidated with Case No. 22SMCV01710 or with both Case No. 22SMCV01710 and the arbitration action. As discussed above, Angelo LLC has failed to provide the Court with sufficient grounds to consolidate this action with only Case No. 22SMCV01710 or with both Case No. 22SMCV01710 and the arbitration action. Accordingly, Defendant/Cross-Complainant 1155 Angelo Dr LLC’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Cross-Complaint is DENIED.

The Court’s ruling herein is based on Angelo LLC’s failure to provide the Court with a basis to conclude that consolidation is proper. While consolidation may be proper given that the actions arise out of the same questions of fact and the same incident, the Court cannot consolidate cases based only on a party’s conclusory statements that consolidation is proper. Further, amendment may be proper, but the Court cannot allow amendment where the amendment essentially seeks to consolidate the actions into one pleading while consolidation has not been ordered. The Court is concerned about the possibility of inconsistent rulings, but Angelo LLC has failed to provide the Court with enough information to allow it to engage in the required analysis of the factors supporting consolidation. The Court urges the parties in the three actions to work together informally to streamline the claims asserted in these three actions to avoid inconsistent rulings.