Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2023-00053788-CU-WM-CTL, Date: 2024-05-10 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - May 09, 2024

05/10/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Writ of Mandate Demurrer / Motion to Strike 37-2023-00053788-CU-WM-CTL NGUYEN VS. LA JOLLA RACQUET CLUB CONDOMINIUM OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

The court will hear from the parties regarding this case and the related cases (ROA #9), and the courts comments set forth below.

First, based on its review of the pleadings in the three cases (23-53759, 23-53788, 23-53791), and Respondent La Jolla Racquet Club Condominium Owners' Association, Inc.'s demurrers in two of the cases (23-53788 and 23-53791), the court believes these cases should be consolidated before any further substantive rulings are made.

The legal issues raised by Petitioner Quoc Nguyen in each of his petitions are identical; they all relate to documents requested pursuant to Civil Code sections 5200 and 5210(b)(1), and rely on the same Corporations Code sections for enforcement. In fact, the 'Basis for Relief' sections for each petition are nearly word-for-word identical, and the prayer for two of the petitions (23-53788 and 23-53791) are word-ford-word identical. The factual issues also overlap dramatically. Although each petition technically relates to three separate demands, two of those demands were made on the same day (October 23, 2023) and primarily relate to the same categories of documents, the only difference for most requests being different years., and the third demand was made the next day on October 24, 2023. Moreover, the first two demands inexplicably set separate inspection dates weeks apart (November 8, 2023 and the day after Thanksgiving on November 23, 2023) despite the substantially overlapping nature of the requests, and the third demand set an inspection date on November 8, 2023, coincident with the same time and place for one of the October 23 demands.

Given the above facts, the court questions whether Petitioner's counsel filed three separate petitions primarily to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7, subd. (b)(1).) At a minimum, the three cases plainly involve common questions of both law and fact; consolidating them now will avoid unnecessary costs and delay. The court notes the lead case (23-53759) is in department 65 with Judge Longstreth. However, the three cases were filed on the same day only six months ago, and two of them are already in this department. Under the circumstances, it seems appropriate to consolidate the cases in this department.

Second, Petitioner did not file oppositions to Respondent's demurrer and motion to strike in this case.

However, he did file untimely oppositions in case no. 23-791. Petitioner's counsel attempted to justify the untimely filing by explaining his mistaken belief that an agreement had been reached in both cases for Respondent to withdraw the motions and allow Petitioner to file amended pleadings. However, no such amended pleading has been filed in this case.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3078094  16