Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 21SMCV01425, Date: 2025-03-13 Tentative Ruling
DEPARTMENT 40 - MICHAEL J. SHULTZ - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
The Court issues tentative rulings on certain motions.The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) email Dept 40 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (smcdept40@lacourt.org) with a copy to the other party(ies) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no email is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call.
Case Number: 21SMCV01425 Hearing Date: March 13, 2025 Dept: 40
Thursday, March 13, 2025
[TENTATIVE]
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR COURT JUDGMENT
Plaintiff alleges claims for breach of
contract and common counts to recover fees for legal services rendered to
Defendant in an underlying action.
On September 10, 2021, the Hon. David
Sotelo ordered this case (the “second case” or “-1425”) related to 21STCV30922
Lenny Dykstra v. Robert Shiri designated as the lead case (“lead case” or
“-0922”). On January 14, 2022, Judge Sotelo consolidated the related matters
for all purposes and required all documents to be filed under 21STCV30922 (the
lead matter).
On July 11, 2024, the Hon. Anne
Richardson noted that the lead matter was dismissed, and default was not
entered in the second case. Justice Richardson scheduled a default prove-up
hearing for August 9, 2024.
The court’s file in the lead matter
indicates that Plaintiff Dykstra filed a request for dismissal on June 22,
2023, which the clerk rejected because the cross complainant did not sign the
dismissal. This appears erroneous because a cross-complaint was not filed in
the lead matter. The record reflects that a second request for dismissal was
filed on June 28, 2023. That request for dismissal was rejected because the
clerk noted that a request for dismissal was filed on June 23, 2023. The Court
finds that the matter was dismissed on June 23, 2023.
The effect of consolidation for all
purposes merges the two actions into a single proceeding under one case number
and result in only one verdict or set of findings and one judgment. (Hamilton v.
Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1127, 1147.) Therefore,
in Hamilton, the defendant filed an answer in the second case (Mitchell
II), and thereafter the court consolidated it with Mitchel I. (Id. at 1149.) Defendant also participated in the trial
of the consolidated matters. (Id.) As this
was a complete consolidation, the court found that defendant had appeared in
Mitchell I although it had not been served in Mitchell I. (Id.) Moreover, the court’s ruling granting a preference
in Mitchell I applied to Mitchell II. (Id. at 1148.)
As the two cases here were consolidated
into one action on September 10, 2021, the dismissal filed in the lead matter,
which for all purposes was the only matter having been merged into a single
case, the dismissal filed in the lead matter effectively dismissed the second
matter 21SMCV1425.
The lodged documents were filed in the
lead matter 21STCV30922 and seeks judgment against Lenny Dykstra in the second
matter -1425, although that matter had been consolidated and dismissed with the
lead matter -0922. The order of July 11, 2024, scheduling a default prove-up
hearing was erroneous because of the dismissal of the consolidated action.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for
court judgment is denied.