Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 22SMCV00063, Date: 2024-11-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV00063    Hearing Date: November 21, 2024    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Cienega Ventures LLC v. 730 N. La Cienega, et al.

CASE NO.:                22SMCV00063

MOTION:                  Motion to Consolidate

HEARING DATE:   11/21/2024

Legal Standard

The trial court is authorized to consolidate pending “actions involving a common question of law or fact…,” so as to “avoid unnecessary costs or delay.” (CCP § 1048(a).) The decision to consolidate pending actions is a matter wholly committed to the trial court’s discretion. (Nat’l Elec. Supply Co. v. Mt. Diablo Unified Sch. Dist. (1960) 187 Cal.App.2d 418, 421.) LASC Local Rule 3.3(g)(1) further directs that consolidation cannot occur until “[a] motion to consolidate two or more cases [is] 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.”  

Under California Rules of Court Rule 3.350(a)(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 non-represented parties in all of the cases sought to be consolidated; and (C) Must have a proof of service filed as part of the motion. Under Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.350(b), “[u]nless otherwise provided in the order granting the motion to consolidate, the lowest numbered case in the consolidated case in the lead case.” 

Analysis

Plaintiff Cienega Ventures, LLC moves for the third time to consolidate for all purposes case nos. 22SMCV00063 and 23SMCV05806. Plaintiff contends that the cases involve common factual issues and substantially the same evidence and witnesses. Plaintiff argues that consolidation would prevent waste from repetitive trials and would prevent a risk of inconsistent judgments. The Court is not inclined to consolidate the actions for the same reasons discussed in the prior two motions. Plaintiff cites one common factual/legal issue between the cases, that Defendants’ liability in the fraudulent transfer action (23SMCV05806) is dependent on 730 N. La Cienega LLC’s liability in the breach of lease action (22SMCV00063). The Court does not find this to be a persuasive reason to try the actions together. Plaintiff does little to show that the fraudulent transfer action will be ready for trial by February 2025. Plaintiff does not explain what efforts have been made to advance discovery in the fraudulent transfer matter. Plaintiff does not show a realistic risk of inconsistent verdicts. The Court still finds that the best course of action is to try the breach of lease action as scheduled, which will completely resolve the fraudulent transfer action either through judgment or settlement.

Accordingly, the motion to consolidate is DENIED.