Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 21STCV26832, Date: 2023-09-20 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV26832, Date: 2023-09-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV26832 Hearing Date: September 20, 2023 Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

The motion to consolidate is DENIED.

Background

On July 21, 2021, in this case (Case No. 21STCV26832), Plaintiff David Boukhanian filed a Complaint for (1) negligence and (2) premises liability against Defendants Variel Villa Apartments LLC; Property Management Associates Inc.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, arising out of a fire that occurred on or about December 11, 2020 (the “Boukhanian Action”)

In the Boukhanian Action, on September 22, 2021, Variel Villa Apartments LLC and Property Management Associates Inc. (“Cross-Complainants”) filed a Cross-Complaint against David Boukhanian for (1) breach of contract and (2) negligence.

On January 11, 2022, in Case No. 22STCV01081, Plaintiffs Kathryn Muniz and Stephen Thompson (Plaintiffs) filed a Complaint against Defendants Property Management Associates Inc.; Variel Villa Apartments, LLC; and Does 1 through 20 alleging (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of implied warranty of habitability/tentantability – CCC § 1941.1 and H&S Code 17920.3 et seq, (3) breach of implied warranty of quiet enjoyment – CCC § 1927, (4) negligence, (5) intentional misrepresentation, (6) nuisance, (7) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (8) breach of statute – CCC § 1942.4, and (9) constructive eviction, apparently stemming from the same incident that occurred on or about December 11, 2020 (the “Muniz Action”).

In the Muniz Action, on June 3, 2022, Cross-Complainants filed a Cross-Complaint against David Boukhanian and Roes 1 through 25 for indemnity and declaratory relief.

On August 25, 2022, Cross-Complainants filed a Notice of Related Case regarding cases the Boukhanian Action (Case No. 21STCV26832) and the Muniz Action (Case No. 22STCV01081). On November 2, 2022, this Court entered an order finding the cases were not related pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a). (Min. Order. 11/2/22).

On August 1, 2023, Plaintiff David Boukhanian filed a Request for Dismissal of the complaint in the Boukhanian Action with prejudice. On August 3, 2023, this Court entered dismissal as requested. The Cross-Complaint in the Boukhanian Action remains pending.

On August 21, 2023, Cross-Complainants filed a Motion to Consolidate the Boukhanian Action (Case No. 21STCV26832) and the Muniz Action (Case No. 22STCV01081) pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1048 and California Rules of Court, rule 3.350. That is the motion before the Court. It is unopposed.

On August 30, 2023, Cross-Complainants and Plaintiffs filed a Stipulation for Consolidation of the Boukhanian Action and the Muniz Action. In the stipulation, all parties agree that both cases arise out of the same fire that occurred on December 11, 2020, and that the two cases involve common questions of fact and law.

The Court rejected the Stipulation for Consolidation on the ground that the Boukhanian Action and Muniz Action have not been determined to be related.

Legal Standard

“A pending civil case is related to another pending civil case, or to a civil case that was dismissed with or without prejudice, or to a civil case that was disposed of by judgment, if the cases:(1) Involve the same parties and are based on the same or similar claims; (2) Arise from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact; (3) Involve claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the same property; or (4) Are likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.300(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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1048 (a).) The purpose of consolidation is to enhance trial court efficiency by avoiding unnecessary duplication of evidence and the danger of inconsistent adjudications. (Todd-Stenberg v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 976, 978-979.)

A Notice of Motion to consolidate cases must (1) include a list of all named parties in each case, the names of those who have appeared, and the names of their respective attorneys of record; (2) include the captions of all the cases sought to be consolidated; and (3) be filed in each case sought to be consolidated. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a)(1).)

“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.” (Super. Ct. L.A. County, Local Rules, rule 3.3(g)(1).)

Discussion

Cross-Complainants Variel Villa Apartments LLC and Property Management Associates Inc. move to consolidate the Boukhanian Action (Case No. 21STCV26832) and the Muniz Action (Case No. 22STCV01081), arguing (among other things) that the two cases arise out of the same fire that occurred in the same apartment building and involve much of the same evidence, documents, and witnesses.

The motion is denied. Los Angeles Superior court rule 3.3(g)(1) provides, in relevant part:

Here, the Boukhanian Action is pending in Department 29 of the Spring Street Courthouse, and the Muniz Action is pending in Department 37 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse. The Court previously considered, and denied, a request to relate the cases and assign them to the same department.

The Court also notes that it appears that the motion to consolidate was not filed in the Muniz Action, as is required. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a)(1).)

Conclusion

The motion to consolidate is DENIED.

Moving parties to give notice.