Judge Theresa M. Traber, Case Number: 22STCV32332, Date: 2023-08-15 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 22STCV32332, Date: 2023-08-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV32332 Hearing Date: August 15, 2023 Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE: August 15, 2023 TRIAL DATE: NOT SET

CASE: NRG Energy Inc. v. County of Los Angeles

CASE NO.: 22STCV32332 consolidated with 22STCV32989

MOTION TO TRANSFER AND CONSOLIDATE

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff NRG Energy Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Notice of non-opposition filed by Defendant County of Los Angeles 7/17/23; Notice of non-opposition filed by non-parties County of Contra Costa and County of San Diego 7/14/23

CASE HISTORY:

· 10/03/22: Complaint filed (this case)

· 10/07/22: Complaint filed (Consolidated case)

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

This is an action for refund of a real property transfer tax assessed against Plaintiff.

Plaintiff moves to transfer two other pending actions on the same issue in different jurisdictions into Los Angeles Superior Court and consolidate those actions with this case.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Transfer and Consolidate is GRANTED.

The Court orders that the actions NRG Energy Inc. v. County of San Diego (Case No. 37-2022-00051964-CU-MC-CTL) and NRG Energy, Inc. v. County of Contra Costa (Case No. C23-00316) be transferred to the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles for immediate coordination and consolidation with this action.

DISCUSSION:

Plaintiff moves to transfer two other pending actions on the same issue in different jurisdictions into Los Angeles Superior Court and consolidate those actions with this case.

Legal Standard

Motions to transfer and coordinate are governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 403, which provides:

A judge may, on motion, transfer an action or actions from another court to that judge’s court for coordination with an action involving a common question of fact or law within the meaning of Section 404. The motion shall be supported by a declaration stating facts showing that the actions meet the standards specified in Section 404.1, are not complex as defined by the Judicial Council and that the moving party has made a good faith effort to obtain agreement to the transfer from all parties to each action. Notice of the motion shall be served on all parties to each action and on each court in which an action is pending. Any party to that action may file papers opposing the motion within the time permitted by rule of the Judicial Council. The court to which a case is transferred may order the cases consolidated for trial pursuant to Section 1048 without any further motion or hearing.

(Code Civ. Proc. § 403.) Section 404.1 controls coordination of actions, and states:

Coordination of civil actions sharing a common question of fact or law is appropriate if one judge hearing all of the actions for all purposes in a selected site or sites will promote the ends of justice taking into account whether the common question of fact or law is predominating and significant to the litigation; the convenience of parties, witnesses, and counsel; the relative development of the actions and the work product of counsel; the efficient utilization of judicial facilities and manpower; the calendar of the courts; the disadvantages of duplicative and inconsistent rulings, orders, or judgments; and, the likelihood of settlement of the actions without further litigation should coordination be denied.

(Code Civ. Proc. § 404.1.) Finally, section 1048 authorizes the Court to order, for any actions involving a common question of law or fact a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters at issue and may order the actions consolidated. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1048(a).)

California Rule of Court 3.500 distills these interlocking provisions into a single controlling standard for motions to transfer and consolidate. (Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.500(a).) An order granting the motion must specify the reasons supporting a finding that the transfer will promote the ends of justice, with specific reference to (1) whether the actions are not complex; (2) whether the common question of fact or law is predominating and significant to the litigation; (3) the convenience of the parties, witnesses, and counsel; (4) the relative development of the actions and the work product of counsel; (5) the efficient utilization of judicial facilities and staff resources; (6) the calendar of the courts; (7) the disadvantages of duplicative and inconsistent rulings, orders, or judgments; and (8) the likelihood of settlement of the actions without further litigation should coordination be denied. (Rule 3.500(d).)

Contents of Motion

Under Rule 3.500(c), a Motion to Transfer and Consolidate under section 403 “must be supported by a declaration stating facts showing that: (1) The actions are not complex; (2) The moving party has made a good-faith effort to obtain agreement to the transfer and consolidation from all parties to the actions; and (3) The moving party has notified all parties of their obligation to disclose to the court any information they may have concerning any other motions requesting transfer of any case that would be affected by the granting of the motion before the court.” (Cal. Rule of Court 3.500(c) [emphasis added].) A case is deemed complex if it “is an action that requires exceptional judicial management to avoid placing unnecessary burdens on the court or the litigants and to expedite the case, keep costs reasonable, and promote effective decision making by the court, the parties, and counsel.” (Rule 3.400(a).)

In determining whether an action is a complex case, the Court must consider, among other factors, “whether the action is likely to involve (1) Numerous pretrial motions raising difficult or novel legal issues that will be time-consuming to resolve; (2) Management of a large number of witnesses or a substantial amount of documentary evidence; (3) Management of a large number of separately represented parties; (4) Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court; or (5) Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision.” (Rule 3.400(b).) Subdivision (c) of Rule 3.400 identifies claims for which an action is provisionally deemed a complex case on its face. (Rule 3.400(c).)

Although this motion is accompanied by a declaration from Plaintiff’s counsel, that declaration contains only a bare conclusion that none of the factors indicating a complex case are present in this action, along with a conclusory assessment that the case is not one of the enumerated types of claims that is provisionally complex under Rule 3.400(c). (Declaration of Peter Michaels ISO Mot. ¶ 4.) No facts are presented to support these conclusions. Further, the declaration makes no reference whatsoever to any efforts to obtain agreement to the transfer and consolidation from all parties, nor does it reference notification of all parties of their obligations to disclose information concerning any other motions to transfer which would be affected. (See generally Michaels Decl. ¶ 4.)

That said, the Court observes from the Complaint filed in this action that there is a single issue at hand: whether our Supreme Court’s holding in the case 926 North Ardmore Avenue, LLC v. County of Los Angeles (2019) 3 Cal.5th 319 applies to public utility companies subject to property tax assessment by the California State Board of Equalization. (Complaint ¶ 52.) The Motion also states that the two other cases concern the same legal and factual issue filed by Plaintiff on behalf of two other entities. (Memo. of Ps. & As. p.1:11-15.) It thus appears to the Court’s satisfaction that this case does not involve any of the factors which would warrant a complex designation, nor does the case belong to the enumerated types of claims that are provisionally deemed complex on their face. Further, the remaining parties in the related actions have both appeared in this proceeding by way of formal non-oppositions to this motion, thus demonstrating that they have, in fact, agreed to transfer and consolidation, and are on notice of their obligations. (July 14, 2023 and July 17, 2023 Notices of Non-opposition.) Thus, although the parties have not strictly complied with the procedural requirements for this motion, they have established substantial compliance.

Turning now to the merits, the Court finds, for the reasons stated above, that this matter is not complex, and, in fact, that the matters to be consolidated comprise, in their entirety, a single question of law. As a result, the Court also finds that the efficient use of judicial resources, the calendar of the respective Courts, and the disadvantages of potential duplicative and inconsistent rulings favor transfer and consolidation. Plaintiffs offer little evidence with respect to the convenience of parties, witnesses, or counsel. However, as all three actions involve the same Plaintiff, and the Defendants are three Counties of the State of California, the Court finds from the nature of this action that the convenience of parties does not weigh against consolidation given the capabilities of a municipal entity. Further, as these cases involve a single legal issue, the Court finds that the convenience of witnesses also does not weigh against consolidation.

Finally, Plaintiff does not speak to the relative development of these cases and the work done by counsel, nor does Plaintiff offer any information concerning the likelihood of settlement beyond a bare conclusion that, since these cases present a pure legal dispute, settlement is unlikely without coordination and consolidation. The Court cannot conclude, without more information, that these factors weigh in favor of coordination and consolidation.

On balance, the Court concludes, based on the information presented and the record before it, that transfer and consolidation of the other two actions into this action promotes the ends of justice. The nature of these actions as a single, non-complex, common legal question involving a single Plaintiff and three municipal entities, with minimal factual disputes weighs quite strongly in favor of transfer and consolidation.

CONCLUSION:

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Transfer and Consolidate is GRANTED.

Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 15, 2023 ___________________________________

Theresa M. Traber

Judge of the Superior Court

Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.