Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case Number: 23TRCV00315, Date: 2024-03-15 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 23TRCV00315, Date: 2024-03-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23TRCV00315¿ Hearing Date: March 15, 2024 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling

HEARING DATE: March 15, 2024

CASE NUMBER: 23TRCV00315

CASE NAME: Robert Korbel Davis Jr.; Christine Catherine Davis v. Milton Street Residential Acquisition, Inc.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs, Robert Korbel Davis, Jr. and Christine Catherine Davis, Trustees of the RBR Davis Family Trust Established April 5, 2022

RESPONDING PARTY: Milton Street Residential Acquisition, Inc. (No Opposition)

TRIAL DATE: 23TRCV00315– Not Set.

23TRCV04225 – Not Set

24TRCV00306 – Not Set

MOTION:¿ (1) Motion to Consolidate

Tentative Rulings: (1) GRANTED

I. BACKGROUND¿¿

¿¿

A. Factual¿¿

This motion involves three cases. First, the present case, Case No. 23TRCV00315, Robert Korbel Davis, Jr. and Christine Catherine Davis v. Milton Street Residential Acquisition, Inc., et al.. The Second Case is Case No. 23TRCV04225, Davis v. Beedle. The Third Case is Case No. 24TRCV00306, Gaitan v. Milton Street Residential Acquisitions, Inc..

Plaintiffs, Robert Korbel Davis, Jr. and Christine Catherine Davis, Trustees of the RBR Davis Family Trust established April 5, 2022 (“Plaintiffs”) note that on February 3, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against Milton Street Residential Acquisitions, Inc. (“MSRA”) in the present case (23TRCV00315.) On December 19, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a related action against Christine Price Beedle (“Beedle”) (23TRCV04225). Plaintiffs contend that the MSRA Action and Beedle Action are currently pending before this Court and share common issues of law and fact as both cases arise out of the same alleged breach of contract for the sale of real property commonly referred to as 628 Longfellow Ave., Hermosa Beach, CA 90254. Further, Plaintiffs note that on January 29, 2024, Juan Gaitan (“Gaitan”) filed a complaint against MSRA and Beedle for breach of contract and tortious interference with contractual relations. Plaintiffs contend that the Gaitan case relates to the adjoining real property commonly referred to as 626 Longfellow Ave, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254.

Plaintiffs in this action, as well as Plaintiff Gaitan from Case No. 24TRCV00306 now, request this Court consolidate these three actions because: (1) all parties stipulate to the consolidation; (2) each of the above-captioned cases involves the same parties, witnesses, and common questions of both fact and law; and (3) a single trial avoids unnecessary costs and delays and will serve the interest of economy and convenience.

B. Procedural

On February 14, 2024, Plaintiffs filed this Motion to Consolidate Actions. To date, no opposition has been filed. On March 7, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a stipulation to consolidate, signed by all parties.

II. ANALYSIS¿

A. Legal Standard

California Rules of Court, rule 3.350, subdivision (a) states in relevant part:

(1) 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

(2) The motion to consolidate:

(A) Is deemed a single motion for the purpose of determining the appropriate filing fee, but memorandums, declarations, and other supporting papers must be filed only in the lowest-numbered case;

(B) Must be served on all attorneys of record and all non-represented parties in all of the cases sought to be consolidated; and

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350, subd. (a)). Also, the consolidation statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 1048, states in relevant part:

(a) 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.

(b) The court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy, may order a separate trial of any cause of action, including a cause of action asserted in a cross-complaint, or of any separate issue or of any number of causes of action or issues, preserving the right of trial by jury required by the Constitution or a statute of this state or of the United States.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a).)

The granting or denial of the motion to consolidate rests in the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed except upon a clear showing of abuse of discretion. (See Fellner v. Steinbaum (1955) 132 Cal.App.2d 509, 511.)

B. Discussion

Here, Plaintiffs argue that good cause exists for granting this motion because all three cases involve the same parties and arise out of the same defendants’ alleged breach of contract and tortious interference with the performance of that contract by the same parties relative to the adjoining properties. Further, Plaintiffs assert that all parties stipulate to that requested consolidated cases be heard before this Court, who currently presides over the lead case (the MSRA Action). Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1048, this Court does find that each case, as indicated by Plaintiffs contain common issues of both law and fact, and that good cause does exist.

This Court notes that the Plaintiffs in this MSRA have complied with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.350 by filing their notice of motion containing the list of all named parties in each case, the names of those who have appeared, and their attorneys of record. This Court also notes that the caption on Plaintiffs’ motion contains the caption for all of the cases sought to be consolidated, with the lowest numbered case (the MSRA case) being shown first. Lastly, this Court notes that this motion has been filed in each case sought to be consolidated. As such, Plaintiffs have complied with the procedural requirements needed in a motion to consolidate.

Thus, this Court finds the consolidation of the three cases is proper and in the interest of judicial economy. This Court GRANTS this Motion to Consolidate.

III. CONCLUSION¿¿

¿¿¿

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Consolidate the three cases of Case Nos. 23TRCV00315, 23TRCV04225, and 24TRCV00306, is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice.

¿¿¿

¿¿