Judge: Richard S. Whitney, Case: 37-2020-00008983-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-02-23 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - February 21, 2024

02/23/2024  10:30:00 AM  C-68 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Richard S. Whitney

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2020-00008983-CU-BC-CTL A1 ACQUISITIONS LLC VS ALEXANDRA INVESTMENTS INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING: PLAINTIFF A1 ACQUISITIONS LLC'S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Al ACQUISITIONS LLC ('Plaintiff'), with VOIT VENTURES, INC. d.b.a. VOIT REAL ESTATE SERVICES, KIPP GSTETTENBAUER; and RYAN T. KING (collectively 'Broker') joining in the motion, seeks to consolidate this action against Defendant ALEXANDRA INVESTMENTS INC. dba ANGELO'S TOWING & RECOVERY's ('Defendant') with the action filed by Defendant against Broker.

Plaintiff moves to consolidate under CCP section 1048, which provides in relevant part: 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.) 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.) Plaintiff seeks a complete consolidation. Undoubtedly the actions involve common questions of fact that support consolidation. Defendant cannot dispute that Defendant's action against Broker involve substantial overlap of facts because Defendant's action against Broker essentially arises out of the claims against Defendant by Plaintiff – the formation of the lease and the surrounding circumstances of the lease. The differences in the applicable law between the cases do not justify denying the motion.

More importantly, granting the motion will bring about substantial efficiencies and serve judicial economy. The Court is persuaded that consolidation of the matters would tend to avoid unnecessary costs. Further, Defendant does not demonstrate that discovery could not be completed before the trial date.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3067869 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  A1 ACQUISITIONS LLC VS ALEXANDRA INVESTMENTS INC  37-2020-00008983-CU-BC-CTL Case No. 37-2023-00011864-CU-CO-CTL should be moved to this Court where the first case was filed.

(See California Union Ins. Co. v. Trinity River Land Co. (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 104, 109.) The motion is granted and consolidation of the actions for all purposes in Department 68 is hereby ordered.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3067869