Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 23SMCV01452, Date: 2023-12-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV01452    Hearing Date: December 15, 2023    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

Plaintiff David Shaker (“Plaintiff”) moves to consolidate this case, Shaker v. April 26th, LLC, et al. (Super. Ct. L.A. County, 2022, No. 22SMCV01452) with the small claims case, 1033 3rd Street Apartments, LLC v. Shaker (Super. Ct. L.A. County, 2022 No. 22SMSC00129) for all purposes.  Defendant 1033 3rd Street Apartments, LLC (“1033”) opposes the motion.

ANALYSIS

Code of Civil Procedure, section 1048, subdivision (a) provides:

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.

            Per Local Rule 3.3, subdivision (g), “Cases may not be consolidated unless they are in the same department.  A motion to consolidate two or more cases may be 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.”  (Super. Ct. L.A. County, Local Rules, rule 3.3(g)(1).)  Once the Court relates the cases, the Court may consolidate the actions and order a joint trial on matters that “involve[e] a common question of law or fact.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a).)

            Procedurally, Plaintiff caused the actions to be related, and both cases are currently pending in the same department. 

               Substantively, Plaintiff argues that the parties in both cases are the same and “the outcome of each case will have a bearing on the other case.”  Specifically, Plaintiff contends that both cases share a common question of fact, to wit, whether tenant owes landlord or landlord owes tenant money regarding the same apartment unit over which habitability is contested.  Further, Plaintiff contends judicial economy is best served by consolidation because an appeal of the small claims matter would mean a trial de novo in Superior Court, and if not appealed, the small claims matter would have no res judicata effect on the other matter.

            1033 argues that Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden to establish that the small claims matter, which 1033 filed against Plaintiff to collect unpaid rent, should be consolidated with the lawsuit Plaintiff filed, which alleges 13 causes of action, and involves medical records and experts regarding Plaintiff’s alleged personal injuries.  1033 further argues that it will be prejudiced because the trial date in the small claims matter has been and will continue to be delayed.

            The Court agrees with Plaintiff that the matters should be consolidated.  Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Defendant failed to keep Plaintiff’s apartment unit habitable, causing black mold to grow and develop, ultimately causing Plaintiff’s alleged health complications.  Thus, the habitability and condition of the apartment pertains both to Plaintiff’s defenses in the small claims matter for back rent and to Plaintiff’s operative claims in this matter.  In essence, the cases are mirror images of each other, regarding the habitable conditions of and rent owed on the same underlying apartment.  Moreover, both party and judicial resources will be conserved by avoiding the duplicative litigation that would result from litigating whether and to what extent Plaintiff owes bank rent and whether and to what extent the apartment was uninhabitable such that certain amounts should be deducted from any back rent Plaintiff owes first in the small claims matter, and then again in the unlimited civil division.

            To mitigate any potential prejudice to 1033, the Court will seek to expeditiously set the consolidated action for trial.  The Court may also, if necessary, issue an order to try the issues of habitability and amount of back rent owed separately from Plaintiff’s medical damages, should expert discovery pertaining to Plaintiff’s alleged physical injuries create any barriers to expediently resolving the issues of habitability and rent owed.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to consolidate Shaker v. April 26th, LLC, et al. (Super. Ct. L.A. County, 2022, No. 22SMCV01452) with 1033 3rd Street Apartments, LLC v. Shaker (Super. Ct. L.A. County, 2022 No. 22SMSC00129).

The Court further orders that the cases are consolidated for all purposes and Shaker v. April 26th, LLC, et al. (Super. Ct. L.A. County, 2022 No. 22SMCV01452) is designated as the lead case per California Rules of Court, rule 3.350(b).  The Court further orders that all proceedings and hearing dates in 1033 3rd Street Apartments, LLC v. Shaker (Super. Ct. L.A. County, 2022 No. 22SMSC00129) are vacated.

            Plaintiff shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.

DATED:  December 15, 2023                                                ___________________________

                                                                                          Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court