Judge Peter A. Hernandez, Case 22PSCV00120 2022-08-15 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs Figueroa Street and Fifth, LLC’s and Charles Lewis’s Motion to Consolidate is DENIED as MOOT.

Plaintiffs Figueroa Street and Fifth, LLC (“Figueroa Street”) and Charles Lewis (“Lewis”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) allege as follows: Plaintiffs operate a full-service car wash on Defendants New Age Kaleidoscope, LLC’s (“New Age”) and Kam Sang Company, Inc.’s (“Kam Sang”) (collectively, “Defendants”) property. Plaintiffs were forced to close their business in late February/early March 2020 due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Plaintiffs directly told Defendants that the business was closed and wrote to Defendants on November 27, 2020 of the financial impact Covid-19 had on the business. Defendants served two three-day notices to quit and filed an unlawful detainer complaint in Case No. 21PSCV00638 against Plaintiffs in violation of the Los Angeles County Rent Moratorium. Defendants did not dismiss the unlawful detainer complaint for 158 days. Further, one of Kam Sang’s vice presidents, Lina Mita (“Mita”), falsely promised Lewis during Lewis’s November 2015 negotiations to purchase the car wash and to obtain an assignment of the lease that Lewis would be given additional 10-year options to renew the lease if he waited three months after accepting the assignment of the lease. On January 27, 2019, Plaintiffs delivered a “Notice to Exercise Lease Option” to Defendants, which triggered Defendants’ obligation to provide a proposed rental figure for the coming option term by May 1, 2019. Instead, Defendants sent a written repudiation of the lease’s rent setting provisions on May 13, 2019 and demanded $38,586.75/month as rent for the first five years of the option period. The parties proceeded to arbitration with respect to the rent setting provision; there is a pending action to confirm, with a counter-petition to vacate, the arbitration award in Case Nos. 22PSCP00068. Plaintiffs seek to rescind the lease.

On April 4, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint[1], asserting causes of action against Defendants and Does 1-25 for:

1. Recovery of Penalties for Intentional Violation of the Los Angeles County Eviction Moratorium

On April 25, 2022, New Age filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action against Plaintiffs, Sphere West, LLC and Roes 1-50 for:

On June 14, 2022, the instant case was ordered related to Case Nos. 22PSCV00356, 22PSCP00068 and 21PSCV00638; the instant case was designated the lead case.

This is an unlawful detainer action involving the commercial premises located at 1600 Stoner

On April 8, 2022, New Age filed a complaint, asserting a cause of action against Figueroa Street and Does 1-10 for:

On April 13, 2022, the court related the instant case with Case No. 21PSCV00638 and designated the instant case as the lead case.

On June 14, 2022, the instant case was ordered related to Case Nos. 22PSCV00120, 22PSCP00068 and 21PSCV00638; Case No. 22PSCV00120 was designated the lead case.

On February 10, 2022, New Age filed a “Petition to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award” as against Figueroa Street; on June 1, 2022, the “Order Confirming Arbitration Award and Judgment” was filed.

On June 14, 2022, the instant case was ordered related to Case Nos. 22PSCV00120, 22PSCV00356 and 21PSCV00638; Case No. 22PSCV00120 was designated the lead case.

On August 9, 2021, New Age filed a complaint, asserting a cause of action against Figueroa Street and Does 1-10 for:

On April 13, 2022, the court related this case with Case No. 22PSCV00356 and designated Case No. 22PSCV00356 as the lead case. On June 14, 2022, the instant case was ordered related to Case Nos. 22PSCV00120, 22PSCV00356 and 22PSCP00068; Case No. 22PSCV00120 was designated the lead case.

“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).)

“The purpose of consolidation is merely to promote trial convenience and economy by avoiding duplication of procedure, particularly in the proof of issues common to both actions.” (Estate of Baker (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 471, 485 [quotation marks and citation omitted].)

“There are two types of consolidation: a complete consolidation resulting in a single action, and a consolidation of separate actions for trial. Under the former procedure, which may be utilized where the parties are identical and the causes could have been joined, the pleadings are regarded as merged, one set of findings is made, and one judgment is rendered. In a consolidation for trial, the pleadings, verdicts, findings and judgments are kept separate; the actions are simply tried together for the sake of convenience and judicial economy.” (Sanchez v. Superior Court (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 1391, 1396 [citation omitted].)

“Consolidation under section 1048 is permissive, and the trial court granting consolidation must determine whether the consolidation will be for all purposes or will be limited.” (Committee for Responsible Planning v. City of Indian Wells (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 191, 196, fn. 5.)

Figueroa Street and Lewis move the court for an order consolidating Case Nos. 22PSCV00120 and 22PSCP00068.

The motion is summarily denied. On June 1, 2022, the “Order Confirming Arbitration Award and Judgment” was filed in Case No. 22PSCP00068; accordingly, inasmuch as said action has been concluded (and is, in fact, currently on appeal), there would be no benefit to consolidating the aforementioned cases at this juncture.

[1] On July 18, 2022, the court granted Plaintiff 20 days leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) as to the first cause of action only. There is no indication on ecourt (i.e., as of August 9, 2022, 11 a.m.) that a SAC has been filed.