Judge Lynne M. Hobbs, Case Number: 24STCV01096, Date: 2024-10-15 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 24STCV01096, Date: 2024-10-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV01096 Hearing Date: October 15, 2024 Dept: 61

ARCHDIOCESE OF LOS ANGELES EDUCATION AND WELFARE CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT RELIGIOUS CORPORATION ON BEHALF OF ITSEL vs UNIFIED MODULAR CORPORATION, et al.

TENTATIVE

Defendant and Cross-Complainant CSLM Construction, Inc.’s Motion to Transfer, Consolidate, and Coordinate is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to file the transfer fee.

Judicial Assistant is to calendar an appearance hearing, on the 9 am calendar, in 120 days, for a status conference re the transfer of the case.

Defendant to give notice.

DISCUSSION

I. MOTION TO TRANSFER

A judge may, on motion, transfer an action or actions from another court to that judge's court for coordination with an action involving a common question of fact or law within the meaning of Section 404. The motion shall be supported by a declaration stating facts showing that the actions meet the standards specified in Section 404.1, are not complex as defined by the Judicial Council and that the moving party has made a good faith effort to obtain agreement to the transfer from all parties to each action. Notice of the motion shall be served on all parties to each action and on each court in which an action is pending. Any party to that action may file papers opposing the motion within the time permitted by rule of the Judicial Council. The court to which a case is transferred may order the cases consolidated for trial pursuant to Section 1048 without any further motion or hearing.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 403.)

Coordination of civil actions sharing a common question of fact or law is appropriate if one judge hearing all of the actions for all purposes in a selected site or sites will promote the ends of justice taking into account whether the common question of fact or law is predominating and significant to the litigation; the convenience of parties, witnesses, and counsel; the relative development of the actions and the work product of counsel; the efficient utilization of judicial facilities and manpower; the calendar of the courts; the disadvantages of duplicative and inconsistent rulings, orders, or judgments; and, the likelihood of settlement of the actions without further litigation should coordination be denied. (Code Civ. Proc. § 404.1.)

Defendant and Cross-Complainant CSLM Construction, Inc. (CSLM) moves to coordinate and consolidate the present case with an earlier-filed case filed by Defendant Unified Modular Corporation (UMC) against CSLM in Orange County, Unified Modular Corporation v. CSLM Construction, Inc., OCSC Case No. 30-2022-01256278. CSLM seeks to transfer and coordinate the Orange County action to be heard in this court, and to have the action consolidated with the present action under Code of Civil Procedure § 1048. (Motion at pp. 3–4.)

Section 403 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits coordination of non-complex cases involving “a common question of fact or law.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 403.)1 The present case involves allegations by Plaintiff Archdiocese of Los Angeles, Education and Welfare Corporation (Plaintiff) that UMC failed to deliver modular units ordered by Plaintiff because the units had been converted by CSLM. (Complaint ¶¶ 18–24.) The Orange County action, meanwhile, alleges that UMC and CSLM entered into a joint venture to prepare and sell modular units and split the profits, which CSLM abandoned, in the process selling and converting units that were to go to Plaintiff here. (See 7/30/2024 Opposition to Good Faith Settlement, Exh. A.) CSLM is correct that the two actions involve common questions of fact and law, based on the overlapping facts concerning the alleged conversion of the units.

These cases also meet the standards of section 404.1. The common questions of fact concerning the alleged conversion of the units predominate in both actions. Having separate trials in two cases, in two counties, would entail unnecessary burdens upon the parties and witnesses, eliciting duplicative testimony in duplicative proceedings, with a probability of conflicting rulings. For the same reason, consolidation of the actions is proper under Code of Civil Procedure § 1048, once they are coordinated here.

CSLM presents the required declarations stating why the cases are not complex under California Rules of Court (CRC) 3.400, as the cases do not involve an overbearing multiplicity of pretrial motions, or a large number of witnesses or parties, instead involving largely a dispute over the contract between UMC and CSLM. That same declaration also describes the efforts made to meet and confer with other parties concerning the coordination of the actions, which were largely made without meaningful response. (Kudla Decl. ¶ 8, Exh. A.) No party to either action has filed an opposition to the motion.

The motion is therefore GRANTED.

1 Code of Civil Procedure § 404, by contrast, involves the coordination of complex cases.