Judge: Robert C. Longstreth, Case: 37-2022-00027535-CU-PO-CTL, Date: 2024-01-19 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - January 18, 2024

01/19/2024  08:30:00 AM  C-65 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Robert Longstreth

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Other Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00027535-CU-PO-CTL KROOP VS SWVP MDM LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Consolidate Cases, 12/20/2023

Plaintiffs' Motion to Consolidate Related Actions (ROA 42) is GRANTED.

Plaintiff seeks to consolidate Kroop v. Kohler Co., Case No. 37-2023-00030623, with this action. The Court has sua sponte taken judicial notice of the register of actions in Case No. 37-2023-00030623, specifically including ROA 15 filed in that action, and also grants Defendant's request, made only in its brief, that it take judicial notice of the proof of service for the motion papers filed in this action.

In opposition, Defendant SWVP MDM LLC (hereinafter 'Defendant' unless otherwise noted) raises a number of procedural issues that it asserts justify denial of the motion. First, Defendant asserts the case number of the action to be consolidated, Kroop v. Kohler Co., was not correctly identified on the first page of the notice of motion. (Cal. R. Court, rule 3.350(a)(1)(B).) However, the case number is correctly identified on the following page and throughout the moving papers. This defect is trivial and does not justify denial of the motion. Next, Defendant asserts the motion should be denied because Plaintiffs failed to file the moving papers in Kroop v. Kohler Co. (Id. at subd. (a)(1)(C).) According to the reply papers, this error has been corrected and the papers were filed in the other action on January 10, 2023.

The purpose of this requirement is to notify the court hearing the other action of the pending motion – only the notice and not the other moving papers maybe filed (id. at subd. (a)(2)(A)) – and this purpose was served when Plaintiff informed Judge Katz of the consolidation motion both in writing before it was filed (ROA 15, Case No. 37-2023-00030623), and, according to Plaintiffs, orally after it was filed. Finally, Defendant asserts Plaintiffs failed to file a valid, signed proof of service. (Id. at subd. (a)(2)(B) and (C).) However, a timely and signed proof of service was filed, and confirms both Defendant SWVP MDM LLC and Defendant Kohler Co. were timely served with the moving papers. (ROA 50; see Cal. R. Court, rule 3.1300(c).) Defendant provides no authority for its statement that these procedural defects alone 'require' the Court to deny the motion, and the law, of course, is to the contrary. See, e.g., Civil Code sections 3510, 3528, 3533.

Defendant also opposes the motion on substantive grounds, asserting the parties are not 'identical,' that the two actions do not involve common questions of fact or law, and that consolidation will lead to jury confusion. The court is not persuaded. There is no requirement that the parties be identical, or that the legal and factual issues all be identical, for consolidation to be ordered. Further, the court is satisfied that the two actions – which arise out of the same incident involving a glass shower door that shattered at Defendant SWVP MDM LLC's property – involve common questions of law and fact, that consolidation will not result in undue jury confusion or prejudice to any party, and that it will result in considerable efficiencies to the parties as well as the Court, as Defendant acknowledges in suggesting that consolidation be ordered for at least pretrial purposes. The court notes Defendant Kohler Co. has Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3051588  6 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  KROOP VS SWVP MDM LLC [IMAGED]  37-2022-00027535-CU-PO-CTL not opposed this motion.

Case No. 37-2023-00030623, Kroop v. Kohler Co., is ordered consolidated with this action and this

action, Case No. 37-2022-27535, Kroop v. SWVP MDM LLC, shall be the lead case.

Once confirmed, this ruling shall be the final ruling of the court and no further written order is required.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3051588  6