Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 22STCV05089, Date: 2023-03-07 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV05089 Hearing Date: March 7, 2023 Dept: 34
SUBJECT: Motion for Complete Consolidation of Case No. 22STCV05139 with Case No. 22STCV05089
Moving Party: Plaintiff Michelle Hong
Resp. Party: Defendant Justin S. Kim
The Motion to consolidate is GRANTED. Case Nos. 22STCV05089 and 22STCV05139 are CONSOLIDATED.
PRELIMINARY NOTE:
The papers indicate that there may be a desire by Plaintiff to continue Trial in this matter. Although Defendant argues that this is the reason why Plaintiff is moving for consolidation, this issue is not properly before the Court because Plaintiff has not requested a continuance. Trial is currently scheduled for May 30, 2023 in the consolidated cases.
BACKGROUND:
On February 9, 2022, Plaintiff Michelle Hong filed her Complaint against Defendant Justin S. Kim regarding causes of action arising from Plaintiff’s care for her father and stepmother. (Plaintiff also filed this action against multiple unnamed parties, as well as Does 1 through 70.)
On June 23, 2022, Plaintiff amended her Complaint to substitute Doe 1 with Justin S. Kim. On July 8, 2022, Plaintiff similarly amended her Complaint to substitute Does 1, 11, 21, 31, 41, 51, and 61 with Justin S. Kim.
On July 21, 2022, Defendant Justin S. Kim (“Defendant”) filed his Answer.
On February 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed her Motion for Complete Consolidation of Case No. 22STCV05139 with Case No. 22STCV05089. Plaintiff concurrently filed: (1) Declaration of Christine Hong; (2) Declaration of Michelle Hong; (3) Declaration of Monica C. Yun; and (4) Proposed Order.
On February 22, 2023, Defendant filed his Opposition.
On February 22, 2023, the Court found that cases 22STCV05089 and 22STCV05139 are related and designated 22STCV05089 as the lead case.
On February 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed her Reply. Plaintiff concurrently filed her Request for Judicial Notice.
ANALYSIS:
I. Request for Judicial Notice
Plaintiff requests that the court take judicial notice of the following items:
(1) Notice of Ruling Regarding Related Cases and Vacated Hearing Date, filed February 22, 2023 in Case No. 22STCV05089;
(2) Notice of Ruling Regarding Related Cases and Vacated Hearing Date, filed February 22, 2023 in Case No. 22STCV05139;
(3) Case Management Statement, filed May 31, 2022 in Case No. 22STCV05139;
(4) Case Management Statement, filed June 1, 2022 in Case No. 22STCV05089;
(5) Case Management Statement, filed August 3, 2022 in Case No. 22STCV05139; and
(6) Case Management Statement, filed December 1, 2022 in Case No. 22STCV05139.
Judicial notice is GRANTED to items 2, 3, 5, and 6.
Judicial notice is DENIED as superfluous to items 1 and 4. Any party that wishes to draw the Court’s attention to a matter filed in this action may simply cite directly to the document by execution and filing date. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(d).)
II. Legal Standard
“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 Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a).)
“A notice of motion to consolidate must:
(A) “List all named parties in each case, the names of those who have appeared, and the names of their respective attorneys of record;
(B) “Contain the captions of all the cases sought to be consolidated, with the lowest numbered case shown first; and
(C) “Be filed in each case sought to be consolidated.”
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350, subd. (a)(1)(A)–(C).)
“The motion to consolidate:
(A) “Is deemed a single motion for the purpose of determining the appropriate filing fee, but memorandums, declarations, and other supporting papers must be filed only in the lowest numbered case;
(B) “Must be served on all attorneys of record and all nonrepresented parties in all of the cases sought to be consolidated; and
(C) “Must have a proof of service filed as part of the motion.”
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350, subd. (a)(2)(A)–(C).)
“An order granting or denying all or part of a motion to consolidate must be filed in each case sought to be consolidated. . . .” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350, subd. (c).)
III. Discussion
Plaintiff moves the Court to enter an order consolidating for all purposes Cases Nos. 22STCV05089 and 22STCV05139. (Motion, p. 9:2–5.) Plaintiff argues that the cases involve common questions of law and fact (including identical causes of action, identical affirmative defenses, and the same occurrence), involve identical defendants and similar witnesses, could have been enjoined in a single action, and comply with the procedural requirements of Rule 3.350 of the California Rules of Court. (Id. at pp. 7:7–8, 7:16, 7:24–25, 8:2–3, 8:8–9.)
Defendant opposes the Motion, arguing: (1) that that the Motion is procedurally improper because the cases are not in the same department; (2) that the underlying attempt to relate the cases is not timely; (3) that the Motion is a last-ditch effort to delay Trial in Case No. 22STCV05089; and (4) that the two cases do not have sufficient overlap to justify consolidation. (Opposition, pp. 3:2, 3:9, 3:27, 4:17.)
Plaintiff reiterates her arguments in her Reply.
Defendant’s first two arguments are moot. On the same day Defendant filed his Opposition, the Court found the cases to be related and assigned both cases to Department 34.
The Court is not persuaded by Defendant’s other arguments. The cases clearly have sufficient overlap to justify consolidation. They could have been brought as one action, as they involve the same occurrence, the same defendant, similar witnesses, similar facts, the same causes of action, and the same affirmative defenses. Moreover, whether Plaintiff desires a continuance of Trial is not an issue that is currently before the Court.
The Court GRANTS the Motion.
IV. Conclusion
The Motion is GRANTED. Case Nos. 22STCV05089 and 22STCV05139 are CONSOLIDATED.