Judge Theresa M. Traber, Case Number: 23STCV25757, Date: 2024-09-25 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 23STCV25757, Date: 2024-09-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV25757 Hearing Date: September 25, 2024 Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE: September 25, 2024 TRIAL DATE: July 1, 2025

CASE: Hortense Medina, et al. v. Ruben Cruz, et al.

CASE NO.: 23STCV25757

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Hortense Medina & Alex Ornelas

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendants Ruben & Elizabeth Cruz

CASE HISTORY:

· 09/06/23: Claim filed [Small Claims; Cruz v. Ornelas, et al. Case No. 23BFSC01099]

· 10/20/23: Complaint filed.

· 11/13/23: First Amended Complaint filed.

· 01/11/24: Application and Order for Transfer granted. Small claims action transferred to this Court.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

This is an action for housing discrimination. Plaintiffs contend that their former landlords denied Plaintiffs accommodations for their disabilities in the use of the rental property, threatened eviction based on their disabilities, and failed to provide a habitable premises.

Plaintiffs move to consolidate this action with the small claims limited civil action Cruz v. Ornelas, et al., Case No. 23BFSC01099.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiffs move to consolidate this action with the small claims limited civil action Cruz v. Ornelas, et al., Case No. 23BFSC01099.

Motions to consolidate are generally governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 1048. This section provides:

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), bold emphasis added.) A motion to consolidate must also satisfy the requirements of California Rules of Court Rule 3.350, which provides, in relevant part:

(a) Requirements of motion

(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 nonrepresented parties in all of the cases sought to be consolidated; and

(Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.350(a).)

The moving party has not listed the parties who have appeared in each case in the notice of motion, as required by Rule 3.350(a)(1)(A). The moving party also has not listed the names of the respective attorneys of record, as required by Rule 3.350(a)(1)(A).

The moving party has not included the captions of both cases, as required by Rule 3.350(a)(1)(B). Further, the notice of motion was not filed in the Unlawful Detainer Action, as required by Rule 3.350(a)(1)(C).

It appears that the moving party served the attorneys of record for each party, as required by Rule 3.350(a)(2)(B).

Crucially, before consolidation may be ordered, the Small Claims action must be reclassified as an unlimited civil action and the reclassification fee paid pursuant to Los Angeles Superior Court Local Rule 3.3(g)(3). Although the Small Claims action has been transferred to this Court, it has not been reclassified as an unlimited civil action. Controlling authority indicates that consolidation of small claims actions with unlimited civil actions are in excess of the Court’s jurisdiction. In Acuna v. Gunderson Chevrolet Inc. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1467, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of a motion to consolidate a small claims appeal with a related unlimited civil case, reasoning:

If the request had been granted, several of the statutory limitations would have been violated including the prohibitions against pretrial discovery, jury trial and a plaintiff's appeal. Such an order would also have violated the requirement that the matter be transferred back to small claims court upon termination of the appellate proceedings. Most importantly, the effect of an order granting consolidation would have been to thrust this action into the morass of superior court litigation, with its attendant delays and complexities, in direct contravention of the Legislature's intent that small claims cases be resolved expeditiously and inexpensively.

(Acuna v. Gunderson Chevrolet Inc. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1467, 1472.) The Court therefore concludes that it does not have jurisdiction to grant the relief requested in these circumstances. At minimum, consolidation is not proper so long as the Small Claims action remains so classified.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Consolidate is DENIED.

Moving Parties to give notice.

Dated: September 25, 2024 ___________________________________

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.