Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 21STCV40496, Date: 2023-05-05 Tentative Ruling

Tentative rulings are sometimes, but not always, posted. The purpose of posting a tentative ruling is to to help focus the argument. The posting of a tentative ruling is not an invitation for the filing of additional papers shortly before the hearing.

Case Number: 21STCV40496    Hearing Date: May 5, 2023    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Defendant, Cross-Defendant, and Cross-Complainant Southland Building and Remodel, Inc.         

RESPONDING PARTY:       N/A

(1)   Notice of Related Case

MOVING PARTY:                 Defendant, Cross-Defendant, and Cross-Complainant Southland Building and Remodel, Inc.         

RESPONDING PARTIES:    (1) Plaintiff Keith Sidlo

                                                (2) Plaintiff Riviera Property Group, LLC

(2)   Motion for Consolidation

MOVING PARTY:                 Defendant, Cross-Defendant, and Cross-Complainant Southland Building and Remodel, Inc.         

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiff Keith Sidlo

(3)   Motion to Continue Trial and Related Dates

The court considered the Notice of Related Case, filed March 6, 2023. 

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with the motion for consolidation and the motion to continue trial and related dates.  

NOTICE OF RELATED CASE

On March 6, 2023, defendant, cross-defendant, and cross-complainant Southland Building and Remodel, Inc. (“Southland”) filed a Notice of Related Case in this action, contending that this action (Case No. 21STCV40496), filed by plaintiff Keith Sidlo (“Sidlo”) on November 3, 2021 (the “Sidlo Action”) is related to the action titled Riviera Property Group, LLC v. Southland Building and Remodel, Inc. (Case No. 23STCV01271), filed by plaintiff Riviera Property Group, LLC on January 19, 2023 (the “Riviera Action”).

The court determines and orders that the Sidlo Action and the Riviera Action are not related for the following reasons.    

First, the cases do not involve the same parties.  The plaintiffs in the two cases are different parties.  The plaintiff in the Sidlo Action is Keith Sidlo, and the plaintiff in the Riviera Action is Riviera Property Group, LLC.  Further, although most of the defendants named in the Sidlo Action and the Riviera Action are the same, the Riviera Action names Lloyd’s of London as a defendant.  However, Lloyd’s of London is not named as a defendant in the Sidlo Action.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.300, subd. (a)(1).) 

Second, although many of the claims asserted by the plaintiffs in both cases involve similar issues, the Riviera Action also includes insurance coverage causes of action for declaratory relief and bad faith failure to properly investigate claim against Lloyd’s of London (fifth and sixth causes of action) which are not alleged in the complaint in the Sidlo Action.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.300, subd. (a)(1).)

Third, the court finds that deeming the cases related in order to have the parties litigate them together would cause undue prejudice to plaintiff Sidlo in the Sidlo Action.  Trial in the Sidlo Action is set for June 7, 2023.  Relating the cases and consolidating them to be litigated and tried together would necessitate continuing the trial in the Sidlo Action for at least 10 months, according to defendant Southland.  Although, as discussed below in connection with Southland’s motion to continue trial, the court finds good cause to grant a short continuance in the Sidlo Action (which plaintiff Sidlo does not oppose), the court finds that continuing the action to April 15, 2024 (which defendant Southland asserts would be necessary if the two cases were ordered related and consolidated) would cause undue prejudice to Sidlo based on the substantial delay in having his claims adjudicated.  Moreover, the Riviera Action was not filed until a year and two months after Sidlo filed and began litigating the Sidlo Action, and the court finds that it would be unfair to Sidlo to cause substantial delay of the trial in the Sidlo Action by deeming the cases related.

MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION

Southland moves the court for an order consolidating the Sidlo Action with the Riviera Action.

“Cases may not be consolidated unless they are in the same department.  A motion to consolidate two or more cases may be noticed and heard after the cases, initially filed in different departments, have been related into a single department, or if the cases were already assigned to that department.”  (Local Rules, rule 3.3, subd. (g)(1).) 

For the reasons set forth above, the court has ordered that the Sidlo Action and Riviera Action are not related.  The court therefore may not consolidate these actions.  (Local Rules, rule 3.3, subd. (g)(1).)  In addition, the court finds that there is not good cause to consolidate the cases for the same reasons that the court has determined and ordered the cases are not related, as discussed above.

The court therefore denies defendant, cross-defendant, and cross-complainant Southland Building and Remodel, Inc.’s motion for consolidation.

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

Southland moves the court for an order (1) continuing trial in this action to April 15, 2024, and (2) continuing all related trial dates, deadlines, and discovery cut-off dates to follow the new trial date.

The court finds that there is not good cause to continue the trial to April 15, 2024.  However, the court finds good cause to grant Southland’s request to continue the trial and related dates for a short period of time in order (1) to give Sidlo the opportunity to update his defect list and cost of repair to include damage from water intrusion caused by recent heavy rains, and (2) to give the parties time to conduct another site inspection of the property, to investigate the new defects and damage, and to complete percipient and expert witness depositions.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1332, subds. (c)(7), (d)(5), (d)(10), (d)(11); Brice Decl., ¶¶ 18-19.)

The court therefore exercises its discretion to grant defendant, cross-defendant, and cross-complainant Southland Building and Remodel, Inc.’s motion to continue trial and related dates as follows.  The court orders:

1.     The trial in this action is continued from June 7, 2023, to August 9, 2023, at 11:00 a.m., in Department 53.

2.     The Final Status Conference in this action is continued from May 26, 2023, to July 28, 2023, at 8:30 a.m., in Department 53.

3.     All discovery cut-off and discovery motion cut-off dates, and deadlines for the exchange of information concerning expert trial witnesses shall be based on the new trial date.  

The court orders defendant, cross-defendant, and cross-complainant Southland Building and Remodel, Inc. to give notice of this order to all parties who have appeared in the Sidlo Action and the Riviera Action.       

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  May 5, 2023

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court