Judge: Nathan Vu, Case: 2022-01261346, Date: 2022-11-14 Tentative Ruling
Please Note: The hearing on this matter is scheduled for 8:30 A.M.
Motion to Consolidate
Defendants Related Management Company, LP’s and Yareli Sandoval’s motion to consolidate is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
The court REQUESTS that the judicial officers to whom are assigned Case Number 30-2022-01261354, Case Number 30-2022-01267301, and Case Number 30-2022-01269883 transfer those matters to this judicial officer and this department.
Upon the transfer of the above cases, the court shall CONSOLIDATE for purposes of trial only Case Number 30-2022-01261346, Case Number 30-2022-01261354, Case Number 30-2022-01267300, Case Number 30-2022-01267301, and Case Number 30-2022-01269883. Case Number 30-2022-01261346 shall be the lead case.
Upon the transfer and consolidation of the above cases, the court shall CONTINUE the Anti-SLAPP motions to strike in Case Number 30-2022-01261346, Case Number 30-2022-01261354, Case Number 30-2022-01267300, and Case Number 30-2022-01269883 shall be continued or scheduled to 02/06/2022 at 8:30 a.m. in Department N15.
Upon the transfer and consolidation of the above cases, the court shall CONTINUE all the case management conferences set in the 5 consolidated cases to 02/23/2022 at 8:30 am in Department N15.
Upon the transfer and consolidate of the above cases, the court shall set an Order to Show Cause re: Transfer of Unlawful Detainer in Case Number 30-2022-01267300 for 02/23/2022 at 8:30 am in Department N15.
The court DENIES without prejudice the motion to consolidate as to Case Number 30-2022-01267303.
Defendants Related Management Company, LP and Yareli Sandoval move to consolidate the following cases:
1) James Lowther v. Related Management Company, LP; Yareli Sandoval (Case Number 30-2022-01261346);
2) James Lowther v. Related Management Company, LP; Charles R. Burkett (Case Number 30-2022-01261354);
3) James Lowther v. Pavilion Park Senior 1 Housing Partners, Yareli Sandoval (Case Number 30-2022-01267300);
4) James Lowther v. Pavilion Park Senior 1 Housing Partners (Case Number 30-2022-01267301);
5) James Lowther v. Related Management Company LP (Case Number 30-2022-01267303); and
6) James Lowther v. Related Management Company LP, Charles R. Burkett (Case Number 30-2022-01269883).
“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”. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a).) The court may also “order all the actions consolidated and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.” (Ibid.)
The purpose of consolidation is to enhance trial court efficiency (i.e., to avoid unnecessary duplication of evidence and procedures), and to avoid the substantial danger of inconsistent adjudications (i.e., different results when matters are tried before different juries or judges). (Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Proc. Before Trial, 12:340 (The Rutter Group 2012).)
There are two types of consolidation, a complete consolidation which results in a single action and a consolidation of separate actions for trial. (See Sanchez v. Superior Court (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 1391, 1396.) When cases are consolidated completely, which is usually ordered where the parties are identical and the causes could have been joined, the pleadings are considered merged, one set of findings is made, and one judgment is rendered. (Id.)
Cases may also be consolidated for purposes of hearings and trial only. (Id.) When this occurs, the pleadings, verdicts, findings and judgments are kept separate and the actions are simply tried together for the sake of convenience and judicial economy. (Id.)
In addition, Cases #1, #2, #3, #4, and #6 have “a common question of law or fact” and consolidating them “may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay” as they all appear to arise out of the same dispute. The court finds that the risks of duplication and inconsistent results if the actions are tried separately are substantial.
Thus, once the other matters are transferred to this department, all five matters (Cases #1, #2, #3, #4, and #6) will be ordered consolidated for the purposes of hearing and trial only. This matter (Case #1) shall be the lead matter.
In addition, the court will schedule the case management conferences set in all 5 cases for one date and the Anti-SLAPP motions to strike filed in 4 of the cases (Cases #1, #2, #3, and #6) for one date.
The remaining case (Case #5) appears to be an unlawful detainer case and/or a limited civil case. If that is true, then relating or consolidating Case #5 would not be appropriate as the law will be different from the other cases and the case will be entitled to an expedited trial. The court will therefore deny consolidation with respect to Case #5 without prejudice. Either party may seek relation or consolidation if it is later determined that Case #5 may be appropriately related or consolidated for trial.
Case #3 may also be an unlawful detainer case. Unfortunately, that determination is difficult to make as Plaintiff’s complaint(s) are not easy to comprehend or interpret. Therefore, the court will set an order to show cause why Case #3 should not be transferred to the unlawful detainer court, to be set for the same date as the case management conference.
Defendants shall give notice of this ruling.