Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 23STCV09893, Date: 2025-01-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV09893    Hearing Date: January 6, 2025    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: January 6, 2025

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Consolidate;

Motion to Vacate Trial Date

Moving Party: Defendant Main Street Vistas

Responding Party: Plaintiffs Teresa Washington, et al.

T/R:      DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE IS GRANTED.

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE AND CONTINUE TRIAL IS GRANTED.

DEFENDANT 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 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers and opposition.

A. Motion to Consolidate

“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).)

Defendant Main Street Vistas moves to consolidate (1) Teresa Washington, et al v. 5950 MAIN LP, et al., Case Number 23STCV09893 (Washington); and (2) Carlos Serrano, et al. v. 5950 MAIN LP Case Number 23STCV21254 (Serrano).

Defendant argues that the cases should be consolidated because they contain common issues of law and fact. Both actions involve tenant plaintiffs suing over habitability conditions in the same building. Defendant asserts that the actions involve the same conditions, the same property, the same evidence and witnesses and the same Defendants. Plaintiffs do not oppose this motion.

The Court finds that there are common issues of fact and law, making consolidation appropriate. Defendant’s motion to consolidate is GRANTED.

B. Motion to Vacate Trial Date

While trial continuances are generally disfavored, pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1332(c), circumstances that indicate good cause for a continuance include “[a] party's excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts.” (CRC Rule 3.1332(c)(6).) Factors the Court may consider include, “[t]he proximity of the trial date,” “[w]hether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party,” and “[t]he length of the continuance requested.” (CRC Rule 3.1332(d).)

Defendant moves to continue the current trial date of February 3, 2025 out 90 to 120 days. Defendant asserts that consolidation of the related cases, new legal representation and the need for additional discovery require a short trial continuance. In opposition, Plaintiffs assert that a continuance is not necessary because any outstanding discovery exists due to Defendant’s delay and because the minor Plaintiffs, who have suffered illness from the uninhabitable conditions will be prejudiced.

The Court finds a brief continuance appropriate given the consolidation of related cases. This short continuance will not prejudice Plaintiffs. The Court will set the trial date at the hearing.

The motion is GRANTED.