Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 24SMCV01185, Date: 2025-02-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV01185    Hearing Date: February 14, 2025    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Art Center Holdings Inc., et al., v. WCE CA Art LLC, et al.

CASE NO.:                24SMCV01185

MOTION:                  Motion(s) to Consolidate

HEARING DATE:   2/14/2025

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 SCRC Medical Group, P.C. moves for an order: (1) deeming the unlawful detainer actions filed by WCE CA Fertility, Inc. (“Defendant” or “WCE”), captioned WCE CA Fertility, Inc. v. SCRC Medical Group, P.C., et al., Case No. 24SMCV05358 and 24SMCV05578 (the “UD Actions”), related to SCRC’s earlier-filed civil proceeding, Art Center Holdings, Inc., et al. v. WCE CA Art, LLC, et al., Case No. 24SMCV01185 (the “Civil Action”); (2) consolidating the Related Cases into the lead Civil Action, Case No. 24SMCV01185, pending in this Court, which was filed first; and (3) either (a) staying the UD Actions pending the outcome of the arbitration between the parties; or (b) lifting the stay of the Civil Action and reconsidering and/or vacating its August 23, 2024 order compelling arbitration. Plaintiff asserts that the cases should be consolidated because the cases involve “common question[s] of law or fact” and consolidation would be significantly more efficient and would mitigate against “unnecessary costs or delays.”

            As set forth below, the Court is not inclined to consolidate the UD Actions with he Civil Action or stay the UD Actions. Procedurally, SCRC failed to notice the consolidation in the UD Actions. (CRC Rule 3.350(a)(1).) Substantively, the UD Actions are not appropriately consolidated with the civil action.

The court may exercise its discretion to order consolidation of an unlawful detainer action where a civil action puts at issue “complex issues of title” affecting the right of possession in the unlawful detainer action. (Martin-Bragg v. Moore (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 367, 385.) In a typical unlawful detainer proceeding, the only triable issue is the right to possession of the disputed premises, along with incidental damages, and not issues with respect to title. (Id.) However, the trial court has the power to consolidate an unlawful detainer proceeding with a simultaneously pending action in which title to the property is in issue because a successful claim of title by the tenant would defeat the landlord's right to possession. (Id.) The Civil Action does not involve a dispute over title which might affect the right to possession of the premises in the UD Actions. Thus, the UD Actions have no interwoven “complex issues of title” with the Civil Action which might preclude a summary disposition of the subject premises. Therefore, the UD Actions should remain distinct.  At the hearing, the Court will discuss with the parties potentially consolidating the two UD Actions into one matter.

Furthermore, the record does not support a waiver of the right to arbitrate. “There is no single test for waiver of the right to compel arbitration, but waiver may be found where the party seeking arbitration has (1) previously taken steps inconsistent with an intent to invoke arbitration, (2) unreasonably delayed in seeking arbitration, or (3) acted in bad faith or with willful misconduct.” “While engaging in litigation of the matter may be inconsistent with an intent to invoke arbitration, ‘the party who seeks to establish waiver must show that some prejudice has resulted from the other party’s delay in seeking arbitration.’” Factors to consider in determining waiver include: “(1) whether the party’s actions are inconsistent with the right to arbitrate; (2) whether ‘the litigation machinery has been substantially invoked’ and the parties ‘were well into preparation of a lawsuit’ before the party notified the opposing party of an intent to arbitrate; (3) whether a party either requested arbitration enforcement close to the trial date or delayed for a long period before seeking a stay; (4) whether a defendant seeking arbitration filed a counterclaim without asking for a stay of the proceedings; (5) ‘whether important intervening steps [e.g., taking advantage of judicial discovery procedures not available in arbitration] had taken place’; and (6) whether the delay ‘affected, misled, or prejudiced’ the opposing party.’” (Saint Agnes Medical Center v. PacifiCare of California (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1187, 1196.) Here, Defendants did not delay in bringing their motion to compel arbitration. Defendants raised their arbitration defense before filing the UD Actions. Thus, Defendants have not taken inconsistent positions with the right to arbitrate before enforcing their right to arbitrate the civil action.