Judge: Michael J. Strickroth, Case: 2020-01176326, Date: 2023-06-12 Tentative Ruling
Motion to Consolidate
Defendant, William Schlabach’s (Defendant) Motion to Consolidate Actions (Motion) is GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s Objections to the Declaration of Damian D. Capozzola, filed 2-28-23 under ROA No. 808 are overruled as to objections 1 and 3. The objections are sustained as to objections 4-12 and sustained in part as to objection 2, the portion of the Capozzola Declaration stating: “Virginie Boutin, a Director of LBC who was elected to the Board by Soura and who has been in a romantic relationship with Soura for several years.”
“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.” Code of Civil Procedure § 1048. “[A]ctions may be consolidated, in the discretion of the court, whenever it can be done without prejudice to a substantial right.” Jud Whitehead Heater Co. v. Obler (1952) 111 Cal.App.2d 861, 867.
Defendant moves to consolidate the instant action with Case No. 30-2022-01294984-CU-BT-CJC (William Schlabach, et al. v. Allan Colvin, et al.) (Schlabach Action). Defendant argues the Motion should be granted because common questions of law and fact predominate both actions and it would be in the interest of judicial economy to consolidate the actions because it would allow the parties to pursue their claims relating to Lunada Bay Corporation (Company) in the same action.
In opposition, Plaintiff argues the Motion should be denied because common questions of law and fact do not predominate, as the instant action involves claims that defendants were improperly compensated while the Schlabach Action involves claims that certain shares of Company should not have been sold and certain information should not have been given to a competitor of the Company.
On 12-7-22, the Court previously related the Schlabach Action to this action.
The Court finds this action and the Schlabach Action involve common questions of law and fact. Specifically, both actions involve claims that defendants engaged in improper conduct in connection with the purchase or sale of shares in Company. Because of these common questions of law and fact, the Court finds consolidation would be in the interest of judicial economy as witnesses and evidence common to both causes of action would only have to be presented once. Neubrand v. Superior Court (1970) 9 Cal. App. 3d 311, 322-323.
Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED. The Court consolidates the instant action with the Schlabach Action for all purposes. All filings are to be in the lower case number 2020-01176326.
Moving party Schlabach to give notice.
Motion for Leave to File Cross Complaint
Defendant, William Schlabach’s (Defendant) Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint (Motion) is denied as MOOT.
Defendant’s Motion seeks leave to file a proposed Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff, Scott Soura and Allan Colvin. The proposed Cross-Complaint is identical to the Complaint in Schlabach, which is the subject of Defendant’s Motion for Consolidation.
Having granted Defendant’s Motion for Consolidation, Defendant’s Motion is DENIED as MOOT.
Moving party Schlabach to give notice.
Case Management Conference
Regardless whether counsel submit on the tentative rulings as to the motions above, the parties through counsel are required to attend the case management conference, either remotely or in person.