Judge: Loren G. Freestone, Case: 37-2018-00062311-CU-FR-CTL, Date: 2023-09-01 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - August 03, 2023

08/04/2023  10:30:00 AM  C-64 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Loren G. Freestone

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Fraud Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2018-00062311-CU-FR-CTL RICOTTA VS RICOTTA [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING Defendant Lancair Corporation's motion to consolidate is DENIED.

Lancair's request for judicial notice of the third amended complaint in Ricotta v. Ricotta et al. (Case No.

18-62311) (the Ricotta Action) and the petition for writ of mandate in Ricotta v. Lancair Corporation (Case No. 22-44771) (the Writ Action) is granted. The court also takes judicial notice of the remainder of the files in both cases. (See Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (d), 455, subd. (a).) The parties previously stipulated that the Ricotta Action and the Writ Action were related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300. Upon review of the operative complaint in the Ricotta Action and the petition in the Writ Action, the cases are indeed related. (See Tritek Telecom, Inc. v. Superior Court (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1385, 1390 [director's petition to inspect corporate documents deemed related to shareholder complaint for damages, separate complaint seeking the removal of a director, and separate petition for the appointment of a provisional director].) The issue is whether the two matters should be consolidated. '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).) Whether to consolidate two matters 'is addressed to the discretion of the court.' (Chamberlain v. Wakefield (1949) 95 Cal.App.2d 280, 290–291.) Lancair argues that the Ricotta Action should be consolidated with the Writ Action because 'the Writ Action is essentially a discovery dispute that relates to documents that are sought and relevant to the Ricotta Action.' Lancair argues that 'the Ricotta Action and Writ Action involve the same discovery dispute related to Lance's request for Lancair's financial records and lease documents.' However, whether Lance is entitled to the documents in discovery in the Ricotta Action, and whether Lance is entitled to the documents at the conclusion of the Writ Action, involve different issues.

In the Ricotta Action, the issue is essentially whether the documents are 'relevant to the subject matter' of the case and either 'admissible in evidence or appear[] reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.' (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.) That issue does not turn on any separate rights Lance has as a shareholder to inspect corporate records. (See Bezirdjian v. O'Reilly (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 316, 328 [noting there was no 'authority for the proposition that section 1601 authorizes Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2970568  44 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  RICOTTA VS RICOTTA [IMAGED]  37-2018-00062311-CU-FR-CTL discovery in an ongoing lawsuit'].) In the Writ Action, the issue is essentially whether Lance's request to inspect corporate records was 'for a purpose reasonably related to [his] interests as a shareholder.' (Corp. Code, § 1601, subd. (a)(1).) That issue does not necessarily turn on whether Lance is entitled to the documents in discovery in the Ricotta Action. (See Fowler v. Golden Pacific Bancorp, Inc. (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 205, 225 [holding director had right to inspect corporate records under Corporations Code section 1602 even though the director had unsuccessfully sought to obtain the same corporate records as part of discovery in a separate case filed against him by the corporation alleging claims for breach of fiduciary duty, concealment, and fraud].) Whether Lance is entitled to the documents in either action turns on different issues. Accordingly, the motion to consolidate is denied.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2970568  44