Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 19STCV44034, Date: 2023-08-28 Tentative Ruling

1. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, please email the clerk at SMCdept51@lacourt.org (and “cc” all other parties in the same email) and notify all other parties in advance that you will not be appearing at the hearing.  Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you do not have access to the internet, you may call the clerk at (213) 633-0351.

If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear and argue the motion, and the Court may decide not to adopt the tentative ruling. Please note that the tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question which are not authorized by statute or Rule of Court.

2. For any motion where no parties submit to the tentative ruling in advance, and no parties appear at the motion hearing, the Court may elect to either adopt the tentative ruling or take the motion off calendar, in its discretion.

3. DO NOT USE THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO SUBMIT TO A TENTATIVE RULING.  The Court will not read or respond to emails sent to this address for any other purpose.

Case Number: 19STCV44034    Hearing Date: August 28, 2023    Dept: 51

Tentative Ruling

Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Department 51

HEARING DATE:   August 28, 2023                                 

CASE NAME:           Jack Song v. Seok Kim, et al.

CASE NO.:                19STCV44034

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Jack Song

RESPONDING PARTY(S): None as of August 23, 2023.

REQUESTED RELIEF:

1.      An order consolidating two matters.

TENTATIVE RULING:

1.      Motion to Consolidate is GRANTED.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

On December 6, 2019, Plaintiff Jack Song (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Seok Kim, Kyeong Hee Im, Abba Trading Corp., and Sung En Jaeke Lee (“Defendants.”) The complaint alleged seven causes of action, including breach of contract and fraud. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendants a loan of $120,000, which was to be paid back within 2 years. However, Defendants failed to do so in full. Moreover, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Kim and Im, as well as Defendant Abba, sold Mr. Bossam, a Korean restaurant, to Defendant Lee, which rendered Abba insolvent with the intent to defraud Abba’s creditors, including Plaintiff.

On January 23, 2020, Defendant Sung En Jaeke Lee filed an Answer.

On August 13, 2023, Plaintiff obtained a Default Judgment as to Defendants Seok Kim, Kyeong Hee Im, and Abba Trading Corp.

On July 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Related Case, as to LASC No. 23STCV15628, which was GRANTED.

On August 1, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Consolidate. No opposition has been filed as of August 23, 2023.

LEGAL STANDARD:

California Rules of Court, rule 3.350(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(a)). 

Also, the consolidation statute, Code of Civil Procedure § 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. 

(Code Civ. Proc., § 1048(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.)  

ANALYSIS:

            Plaintiff moves to consolidate two actions.

Background:

The action arises out of a loan provided by Plaintiff to Defendants Seok Kim, Kyeong Hee Im, and Abba Trading Corp. Plaintiff obtained a default judgment as to the above Defendants. Plaintiff later obtained documents that indicated that the alcoholic licenses belong to Abba Trading Corp. was transferred to Defendant Lee. In discovery, Lee claimed that Debtors transferred their asset, Mr. Bossam, to Step 32 Global, Inc. (Dec. Kim ¶ 3.)

Plaintiff argues that the matters should be consolidated. First, the Court has already determined that these two cases, LASC Case No. 19STCV44034 and LASC Case No. 23STCV15628, are related. The cases involve the same facts – the transfer of ownership of Mr. Bossam restaurant – and also involve the same parties. Second, there will be no prejudice as Defendants attorney, Mr. Ginam Lee represents Defendant Lee in both matters. Moreover, Mr. Ginam Lee agreed to accept service and agreed to continue the trial as to wait for the consolidation matter. Lastly, consolidation will not confuse the jury, as the questions will be the same, “whether the transfer of the ownership of “Mr. Bossam” was made without adequate consideration and with intent to hinder, delay, and defraud Plaintiff in the collection of his secured lien against ABBA and now the judgment entered on August 13, 2021.” (Motion 4: 11-14.)

            The Court finds that consolidation is proper. The issues in the two matters are based on the same facts. Moreover, this Court determined that the two cases are related. Additionally, the facts are similar enough that it is unlikely that consolidating will result in any juror confusion.

            Motion to Consolidate is GRANTED.

Conclusion:

            For the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:

Motion to Consolidate is GRANTED.

Moving party is to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:             August 28, 2023                      __________________________________                                                                                                                Upinder S. Kalra

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court