Judge Michael Small, Case Number: 22STCV00763, Date: 2024-05-01 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michael Small, Case: 22STCV00763, Date: 2024-05-01 Tentative Ruling

Inform the clerk if you submit on the tentative ruling. If moving and opposing parties submit, no appearance is necessary.

Case Number: 22STCV00763 Hearing Date: May 1, 2024 Dept: 57

Plaintiff Bernards Builders, Inc. (“Bernards”) sued Defendants Rescore Hollywood, LLC (“Rescore”) and Berkley Insurance Company (“Berkley”) in connection with a mixed-use project called “Rise Hollywood” that Bernards, as a general contractor, agreed to construct for Rescore. Rescore has cross-claimed against Bernards. Two subcontractors on the Rise Hollywood Project have brought suits their own. Specifically, Carpet U.S.A, Ltd. (“Carpet U.S.A”) has sued Bernards, Rescore, and Berkley in case number 22STCV07868 (“the Carpet USA Action”), and Texim, Inc. (“Texim”) has sued Bernards, Rescore, and Berkley in case number 22STCV19730 (“the Texim Action”). All three actions have been deemed related and are being litigated in Department 57. Bernards has now moved to consolidate the three actions, with the Bernards Action as the lead case. Rescore and Berkley have joined in the motion. Carpet USA and Texim have opposed the motion. The Court is granting the motion.

Motions to consolidate are governed by Code of Civil Procedure Section 1048. It provides as follows:

(a) 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.

(b) The court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy, may order a separate trial of any cause of action, including a cause of action asserted in a cross-complaint, or of any separate issue or of any number of causes of action or issues, preserving the right of trial by jury required by the Constitution or a statute of this state or of the United States.

The purpose of consolidation is to avoid unnecessary costs or delay, avoid duplication of procedure, particularly in the proof of issues common to both action, and avoid inconsistent results by hearing and deciding common issues together. (See Estate of Baker (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 471, 485.) Disposition of a motion to consolidate rests in the trial court's sound discretion and will not be reversed except upon a clear showing of abuse of discretion. (Feliner v. Steinbaum (1955) 132 Cal.App.2d 509, 511.) The following factors generally inform the determination on whether consolidation is warranted: (1) whether granting consolidation would delay the trial of any of the cases involved; (2) whether joining the actions involved would make the trial too confusing or complex for a jury; and (3) whether consolidation would adversely affect the rights of any party. (See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1956) 47 Cal.2d 428, 430–431.)

Bernards has demonstrated that the three actions present essentially similar and overlapping issues related to the Rise Hollywood project based on similar and overlapping pleadings. The claims of the subcontractors Carpet U.S.A. and Texim involve issues of nonpayment, delay, disruption, wrongfully denied change orders, and flawed designs that directly relate to the dispute between Bernards and Rescore. In the Court’s view, consolidation of the three actions will prevent inconsistent outcomes and promote judicial economy by avoiding redundant procedures for the parties, multiple panels of jurors, and the Court itself.

The Court is not persuaded by the arguments of Carpet U.S.A and Texim that their claims are sufficiently distinct from the issues in the Bernards Action such that the Carpet U.S.A. and Texim Actions should proceed on their separate paths. Nor does the Court believe that consolidation will adversely affect Carpet U.S.A. and Texim by unduly delaying trial on their respective claims arising out of the Rise Hollywood Project. In fact, the start date of the trial in the Texim Action already is the same start date for the trial in the Bernards Action. To be sure, trial in the Carpet U.S.A. Action is set to start five months earlier than the trials in the other two actions. The Court has concluded, however, that the delay for Carpet U.S.A. in getting its claims to trial do not outweigh the interests that support consolidation of the Carpet U.S.A. Action with the other two Actions.