Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 24TRCV00775, Date: 2024-05-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24TRCV00775    Hearing Date: May 24, 2024    Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling 

HEARING DATE:                 May 24, 2024 

CASE NUMBER:                  24TRCV00775
 

CASE NAME:                        David Thompson Boyd v. Anuko Corporation, et al.

MOVING PARTY:                Plaintiff, David Thompson Boyd, in pro per

RESPONDING PARTY:      
Defendant, Anuko Corporation, its successors and/or assigns aka Amuko Corporation¿ 

TRIAL DATE:                        24TRCV00775 - Not Set. 

                                                24IWUD00668 – May 29, 2024

MOTION:                             (1) Motion to Consolidate 

Tentative Rulings:                  (1) DENIED.

The Court notes that two different spellings of the entity party’s name are contained in the pleadings, “Anuko” and “Amuko”.  For consistency of reference in this tentative ruling and until the true spelling can be determined, the Court will use the spelling with the letter “N”. 

I. BACKGROUND 

A.    Factual

This motion involves the present case, Case No. 24TRCV00775, David Thompson Boyd v. Anuko Corporation, et al. and the second case sought to consolidate with it, Case No. 24IWUD00668 Anuko Corporation v. David Boyd, et al.

            On March 4, 2024, Plaintiff in the present case, David Thompson Boyd (“Boyd”) filed a Complaint, in pro per, against Defendant, Anuko Corporation, and DOES 1 through 20 for: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (3) Retaliatory Eviction; (4) Uncured Building Violations; (5) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (6) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; and (6) Negligence.

            Further, in Case No. 24IWUD00668, the case Boyd is seeking to consolidate, Amuko filed an unlawful detainer case on March 21, 2024 as against Boyd which is set for trial the week after the hearing on this motion.

            Boyd now moves consolidate Anuko’s unlawful detainer case with the leading numbered case Boyd filed here.

B.     Procedural

On May 1, 2024, Boyd filed this Motion to Consolidate Actions. On May 13, 2024, Anuko filed an opposition brief. To date, no reply brief has been filed.

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 

(C) Be filed in each case sought to be consolidated. 

(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 

(C) Must have a proof of service filed as part of the motion. 

(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, this Court notes that Boyd does not quite comply with the requirements of a Motion to Consolidate. For example, while Boyd does comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.350, subdivision (a), when he listed all named parties in each case and their attorneys, contained the captions of each case sought to be consolidated, with the lowest-numbered case shown first, Boyd failed to comply by failing to list the parties who have appeared in the cases, and also failed to file the motion in each of the cases sought to be consolidated. A review of the documents filed in Anuko’s unlawful detainer action does not contain any motion to consolidate. As such, Boyd has not complied with rule 3.350(a) completely.

Further, Boyd’s motion to consolidate does not have any evidentiary support.  There is no declaration attesting to the similarity of the case, commonality of issues to be tried, status of discovery in one or both of the cases, and other facts relevant to a court’s determination of a consolidation motion.  Boyd’s motion also does not address the looming trial date in the unlawful detainer action, even though the prejudice to one or more of the parties is one of the factors a court must consider in deciding whether to consolidate two or more cases.  (See State Farm Insurance Co. v. Superior Court (1956) 47 Cal.2d 428, 431-32.)  The Opposition highlights the issue of potential prejudice to Anuko if the two cases were consolidated and trial were delayed.  Unlawful detainer cases are entitled to statutory precedence for trial Per Code of Civil Procedure §1179a because the right to possession of real property is at issue.  The Unlawful detainer case is set for trial on May 29, 2024, less than a week after the hearing on this consolidation motion.  (Block Decl. ¶ 5.)  The Opposition points out that unlawful detainer cases are generally not tried together with other causes of action, in large part because of the limited, summary nature of the right-to-possession inquiry that is the sine qua non of an eviction trial, and because the expeditious processes in an unlawful detainer case would be frustrated if a UD case were consolidated or related to an unlimited civil case for monetary damages, statutory violations, declaratory relief, and the like.  (See Childs v. Eltinge (1973) 29 Cal.App.3d 843, 853.)  Unlimited civil cases have much longer time periods for discovery, responsive pleadings, notice of motions, and other procedures than the 5-day periods for each of those things in a UD case.  As one telling example, the case management conference in Mr. Boyd’s lawsuit is not scheduled to occur until August 27, 2024, three months after the trial is set in the UD case.

The Court finds the Opposition to be far more persuasive than the moving papers, and thus the Court exercises its discretion to deny the motion to consolidate Mr. Boyd’s unlimited civil lawsuit with Anuko’s unlawful detainer suit.   Boyd’s motion is thus DENIED.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate is DENIED

Defendant is ordered to give notice.