Judge: Randy Rhodes, Case: 20CHCV00307, Date: 2023-02-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20CHCV00307    Hearing Date: February 7, 2023    Dept: F51

Dept. F-51 

Date: 2/7/23                                                                                        TRIAL DATE: 3/20/23

Case #20CHCV00307

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

Motion Filed: 1/9/23

MOVING PARTY: Defendant/Cross-Complainant Anica Barbosa, an individual (in pro per) (“Defendant”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Walter Martin, Trustee for the Gesner L. Martin Living Trust (“Plaintiff”)

NOTICE: OK

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order consolidating the instant action with Walter Martin, Trustee for the Gesner L. Martin Living Trust v. Sayra Alvarado et al. (Case No. 20CHCV00303) (“Alvarado Action”).

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is denied.

BACKGROUND

Instant Action

On 3/24/20, Plaintiff entered into a month-to-month lease agreement with Defendant for certain premises located at 11967 Adelphia Street, Pacoima, California 91331. According to Plaintiff, Defendant took “premature possession” of the premises on 3/28/20, and blocked Plaintiff from showing the premises to prospective buyers. Defendant also allegedly breached the lease by failing to perform certain agreed-upon tenant improvements, and failing to pay the security deposit, late charges, or the rent due in May 2020 and thereafter.

On 3/19/20, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant for Breach of Lease Contract. Defendant answered the complaint on 8/4/20, and filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiff for Breach of Warranty of Habitability, Negligent Maintenance of Premises, Nuisance, Breach of Quiet Enjoyment, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Intrusion into Seclusion, Violation of Privacy, Promissory Estoppel, Breach of Contract, and Fraud. On 8/24/20, Plaintiff answered the cross-complaint.

On 8/5/22, Plaintiff filed his second amended complaint, alleging against Defendant the following causes of action: (1) Breach of Lease Contract; (2) Fraudulent Concealment; (3) Fraud in the Inducement; and (4) Intentional Misrepresentation.

Alvarado Action

On 4/29/19, Plaintiff entered into a month-to-month lease agreement with defendants Sayra Alvarado, Norma Saleido, and Jonathan Banuelos (collectively, “Defendants”) for certain premises located at 11973 Adelphia Avenue, Pacoima, CA 91331. Defendants took possession of the premises on the same date. Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated the lease by keeping more than one pet on the premises without prior written approval and allowing more occupants to reside at the property than legally allowed. Plaintiff also alleges Defendants failed to perform agreed upon maintenance. Plaintiff cancelled the lease, but Defendants allegedly continued to occupy the premises without paying rent since May 2019.

On 5/5/20, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants for Breach of Lease Contract. On 6/24/20, Defendant answered and filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiff for Breach of Contract, Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability, Breach of Implied Warranty of Quiet Enjoyment, Negligence, Constructive Eviction, Nuisance, Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Retaliatory Acts, and Trespass. On 8/7/20, Plaintiff answered the cross-complaint.

On 2/7/22, Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint against Defendants for (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Negligence (tortious injury to real property); and (3) Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations.

On 1/9/23, Defendant Barbosa filed the instant motion to consolidate the two actions. On 1/26/23, Plaintiff filed his opposition. No reply has been filed to date.

ANALYSIS

Procedural Deficiencies

Plaintiff argues that the Court should deny the instant motion as Defendant has failed to comply with the requirements of California Rule of Court, rule 3.350. Under this rule, “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 Ct., rule 3.350(a)(1).)

As Plaintiff observes, Defendant’s motion fails to contain the captions of the cases sought to be consolidated, and was filed only in the instant action. (Pl.’s Opp., 2:14–17.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion has failed to meet the filing requirements under rule 3.350 of the California Rules of Court. The Court therefore denies the motion for this reason, in addition to the below analysis on the substantive merits of the motion.

Motion to Consolidate

“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 complete consolidation may be ordered where the parties are identical and the causes of action could have been joined. The pleadings are regarded as merged, one set of findings is made, and one judgment is rendered. Because the actions are effectively merged, parties who appeared in either action are subject to the court's jurisdiction in the merged action. (Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1127, 1147–1148.)

Defendant argues that “because both Barbosa and [Alvarado actions] arise from common questions of law or facts which involve the same or substantially the same transactions, incidents, or events. Defendant herein contends that a complete consolidation of both cases is warranted for trial.” (Def.’s Mot., 5:25–6:4.) Plaintiff argues in opposition that the only commonality between the two cases is that they involve the same plaintiff. (Pl.’s Opp., 3:6–9.) Beyond that, Plaintiff argues that the actions involve two separate single-family homes, and “the amounts and types of damages owed by each Defendant is distinct to each Single Family Residence. There are no common questions of law between the two cases.” (Id., 3:14–17.)

The Court agrees with Plaintiff, and notes that the two actions arise out of separate facts concerning each tenant’s alleged breach of their respective lease agreements, and additional conduct stemming therefrom. While Barbosa and Alvarado are each mentioned in the action against the other, the two actions ultimately allege different causes of action from one another, with the instant action concerning 1) Breach of Lease Contract; (2) Fraudulent Concealment; (3) Fraud in the Inducement; and (4) Intentional Misrepresentation; and the Alvarado Action alleging (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Negligence (tortious injury to real property); and (3) Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations.

Accordingly, the court finds that the complete consolidation of the two actions under Code of Civil Procedure section 1048, subdivision (a) is improper.

Timeliness, Complexity, and Prejudice

The parties agree that in ruling on a motion to consolidate, the Court typically considers the timeliness of the motion within the context of each case, the complexity of the issues in joining the actions, and potential prejudice to any party. (The Rutter Group, Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial, Ch. 12(I)-E (2022 ed.).)

Defendant conclusorily argues that “1. Defendant Barbosa’s Consolidation Motion is Timely and Brought Without Delay; 2. Neither Barbosa nor [Alvarado] Cases are Complex Actions; 3. There is no prejudice to any party to either the Barbosa case on the [Alvarado] case.” (Def.’s Mot., 6:14–20.) The Court notes that Defendant presents no additional facts or arguments to support these points.

Plaintiff does not dispute that neither case is complex. Instead, Plaintiff argues that the instant motion is untimely, and that he will be prejudiced if the actions were to be consolidated “as the Court and Plaintiff have already incurred the bulk of time, costs and fees to prepare the cases for trial.” (Pl.’s 3:27–4:3.) Plaintiff observes that Defendant has waited nearly three years to bring the instant motion to consolidate, and the Court notes that the motion is being heard six weeks prior to the trial date in the instant action.

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the motion was is untimely in light of the upcoming trial date, and consolidation would therefore be prejudicial to Plaintiff at this stage of the case.

For the reasons set forth above, Defendant’s motion to consolidate the instant action with the Alvarado Action is denied.

CONCLUSION

The motion is denied.