Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV0954, Date: 2024-12-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV0954 Hearing Date: December 6, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
A. Case number 21STCV09154
On March 9, 2021, Plaintiffs Jose Lemus (“Lemus”), Paulette Stokes, Ilana Mayes, Michael Cali, Juliette Brown, Jeffrey James, Laura Lasky, James Travers (“James Travers”), Christian Travers (“Christian Travers”), Nathan Travers (“Nathan Travers”) and Isabella Travers filed an action against Defendants Empire Properties, Radford Residential LLC (“Radford”), Apartment Management Consultants, LLC (“Consultants”), and Does 1-100 for negligence, premises liability, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. (Case number 21STCV09154.)
On April 23, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint removing Paulette Stokes (“Stokes”) as a plaintiff and adding her as a defendant.
On September 9, 2021, Radford and Consultants filed answers. On October 18, 2021, Empire Properties, LLC (erroneously sued and served as Empire Properties) (“Empire”) filed an answer. On December 28, 2021, Stokes filed an answer.
On October 18, 2021, Radford, Consultants, and Empire filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Stokes and Roes 1-20 for indemnity and contribution.
On November 4, 2022, the Court dismissed Lemus without prejudice at Plaintiffs’ request.
On November 28, 2023, the Court granted the petitions to approve the compromises of the pending claims of James Travers and Christian Travers filed by Petitioner Nathan Travers.
Trial is currently scheduled for February 18, 2025.
B. Case number 23BBCV00635
On March 20, 2023, Plaintiff Truck Insurance Exchange filed an action against Defendants Paulette Janice Stokes aka Paulette Stokes aka Paulette J. Stokes aka Pavlette Stokes aka Paula Jeanne Stokes aka Paulet J. Stokes aka Paulett Stokes (“Stokes”) and Does 1-30 “for equitable subrogation for damages for negligence to property.” (Case number 23BBCV00635.)
On May 12, 2023, Stokes filed an answer.
Trial is currently scheduled for February 27, 2025.
C. Case number 23BBCV01652
On July 21, 2023, Plaintiff Paulette Stokes filed an action against Defendants Empire, Radford, Doe Property Owners 1-9, Consultants, Doe Property Managers 11-19, Doe Property Maintenance 20-29, Does Property Inspectors 30-39, Doe Property Contractors/Remodeling 40-49, and Does 60- 100 for negligence, premises liability, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
On April 5, 2024, the Court sustained Moving Defendants’ demurrer to Plaintiff’s negligent infliction of emotional distress claim without leave to amend.
On May 6, 2024, Empire, Radford, and Consultants filed an answer.
No trial date is currently scheduled.
D. The Court relates case numbers 21STCV09154 and 23BBCV00635
On June 7, 2023, the Court found that case numbers 21STCV09154 and 23BBCV00635 are related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a). Case number 21STCV09154 became the lead case. The cases were assigned to Department 28 at the Spring Street Courthouse for all purposes.
E. The Court relates case numbers 21STCV09154 and 23BBCV01652
On October 11, 2024, the Court found that case numbers 21STCV09154 and 23BBCV01652 are related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a). Case number 21STCV09154 became the lead case. The cases were assigned to Department 28 at the Spring Street Courthouse for all purposes.
F. Motions to consolidate
On October 21, 2024, in case numbers 21STCV09154 and 23BBCV01652, Empire, Radford, and Consultants (“Defendants”) filed motions to consolidate case numbers 21STCV09154 and 23BBCV01652. (Defendants have not moved to consolidate these cases with case number 23BBCV00635.) No oppositions have been filed.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Defendants ask the Court to consolidate case numbers 21STCV09154 and 23BBCV01652 for all purposes, including trial.
LEGAL STANDARD
Code of Civil Procedure section 1048, subdivision (a), provides:
“(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.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a).)
California Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a), provides:
“(a) Requirements of motion
“(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 nonrepresented 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).)
Los Angeles County Superior Court Local Rule 3.3(g) provides: “(1) 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. (2) Upon consolidation of cases, the first filed case will be the lead case, unless otherwise ordered by the court. After consolidation, all future papers to be filed in the consolidated case must be filed only in the case designated as the lead case. (3) Before consolidation of a limited case with an unlimited case, the limited case must be reclassified as an unlimited case and the reclassification fee paid.”
DISCUSSION
Case numbers 21STCV09154 and case number 23BBCV01652 raise common questions of fact and law. Both cases are pending in Department 28. The Court deemed the cases related on October 11, 2024. Defendants have complied with the requirements for moving to consolidate. The Court grants the motions.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS the motions of Defendants Empire Properties, LLC, Radford Residential LLC, and Apartment Management Consultants, LLC to consolidate case numbers 21STCV09154 and 23BBCV01652. The Court consolidates the cases for all purposes, including trial. Case number 21STCV09154 is the lead case.
Moving parties are ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving parties are ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.