Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 21STCV34663, Date: 2024-01-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV34663    Hearing Date: January 4, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: January 4, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motions to Consolidate and to Continue Trial

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Inner City Skyline, Inc., Novel Remodeling, Inc., iGreen Remodeling, Inc., and David Partiel

Responding Party: None

T/R:     PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS ARE DENIED.  

            PLAINTIFFS TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:30 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers. No oppositions have been filed.

            On September 20, 2021, Plaintiffs filed case number 21STCV34663. (Spolsky Decl. ¶ 17.) Plaintiffs causes of action are for defamation, trade libel, breach of contract, negligent interference with prospective economic relations, intentional interference with prospective economic relations, intentional interference with contractual relations, negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress, unjust enrichment, and injunctive relief. (Spolsky Decl. ¶ 18.)

On October 25, 2021, Defendants Chagit Yamini and Limor Rad filed case number 21STCV39136. (Spolsky Decl. ¶ 19.) Defendants causes of action are for breach of contract, failure to pay regular and overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wage, failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statement, failure to pay all wages upon discharged, unlawful and/or unfair business practices, common counts, and fraud. (Spolsky Decl. ¶ 20.)

Both cases stem from employment of Defendants by Plaintiffs starting in November 2019. (Spolsky Decl. ¶ 21.) Plaintiff’s Complaint states Defendants were terminated in March 2021 (Plaintiffs’ Complaint ¶¶ 13 and 14; Spolsky Decl. ¶ 22.) While the Yamini Complaint (21STCV39136) adds Defendants complained to Plaintiffs on or about June 2021 about not receiving payment. (Spolsky Decl. ¶ 23.)

On November 14, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a notice of related case. On November 21, 2023, the Court found that the cases are not related. (11/21/23 Minute Order.)

            On November 30, 2023, the Court denied a Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Consolidate and To Continue Trial. On December 15, 2023 the Court denied Plaintiff’s ex parte to continue the trial.

“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.”  (CCP § 1048(a).)

As the Court indicated in the prior proceedings, the Court is unpersuaded that these actions involve common questions, or that consolidating them at this late date would avoid unnecessary cost and delay. The Court notes that the parties waited more than a year to seek consolidation of these matters, did so only as the trial date approached, and accompanied their requests with efforts to postpone the trial by at least eight months. The Court again finds that the cases should not be consolidated and good cause has not been shown for a trial continuance. At this point discovery should be completed and the parties should be far along in their efforts to resolve the cases and prepare for trial.

The motions are DENIED.