Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 23VECV01671, Date: 2023-05-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23VECV01671    Hearing Date: May 17, 2023    Dept: W

EDMOND LAVI V. PIERRE LAVI

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

Date of Hearing:        May 17, 2023                                    Trial Date:       None set. 

Department:              W                                                        Case No.:        23VECV01671

Moving Party:            Plaintiff Edmond Lavi   

Responding Party:     No opposition

BACKGROUND

On April 17, 2023, Plaintiff Edmon Lavi filed a complaint against Defendant Pierre Lavi aka Parviz Lavi asserting causes of action (1) Fraud; (2) Breach of Oral Contract; (3) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (4) Quiet Title; and (5) Declaratory Relief.

Plaintiff alleges Defendant Pierre, in September 2016, approached Plaintiff and offered help regarding a legal dispute (the “Action”) Plaintiff had arising in August 2015. Plaintiff claims Defendant Pierre approached Plaintiff and represented to him that he would handle any and all matters relating to the Action. However, in order do so, Plaintiff would have to execute a General Power of Attorney appointing Defendant as his Attorney-In-Fact. Based on Defendant’s representations, Plaintiff agreed to do so. Plaintiff claims, however, Defendant Pierre had no intention of performing such promises and instead, without the knowledge, approval and consent of Plaintiff, executed a Trust Transfer Grant Deed relinquishing and transferring the title and ownership of certain Real Property. Once transferred, Defendant acted as if he was the actual and real owner of the property and initiated an unlawful detainer proceeding to remove Plaintiff from the Property by filing an unlawful detainer action against Plaintiff.

[TENTATIVE] RULING:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate is GRANTED.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff moves to consolidate the instant action with the unlawful detainer action filed by Defendant Pierre Lavi on December 27, 2022 against Plaintiff, entitled Pierre Lavi v. Edmond Lavi, Case No. 22VEUD02768.

Motions to consolidate are governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 1048. The purpose of consolidation is to avoid unnecessary costs or delay, avoid duplication of procedure, particularly in the proof of issues common to both action, and avoid inconsistent results by hearing and deciding common issues together.  (See Estate of Baker (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 471, 485.) The granting or denial of a motion to consolidate rests in the trial court’s sound discretion, and will not be reversed except upon a clear showing of abuse of discretion. (Feliner v. Steinbaum (1955) 132 Cal.App.2d 509, 511.)  Each case presents its own facts and circumstances, but the court generally considers the following: (1) timeliness of the motion: i.e., whether granting consolidation would delay the trial of any of the cases involved; (2) complexity: i.e., whether joining the actions involved would make the trial too confusing or complex for a jury; and (3) prejudice: i.e, whether consolidation would adversely affect the rights of any party.  (See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1956) 47 Cal.2d 428, 430-31.)  

The motion to consolidate must list all the named parties in each case, contain the captions of all cases sought to be consolidated, and be filed in each case. (Rules of Ct., Rule 3.350) Additionally, “[c]ases 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.” (LASC Local Rules, Rule 3.3(g)(1).)

Plaintiff argues he will suffer irreparable injury if this court does not act immediately as Defendant’s Unlawful Detainer Action filed by Defendant is a summary proceeding and due to the summary procedures involved, Plaintiff will be forced to litigate the complex issues of title to the subject real property in the Unlawful Detainer case without the benefit of discovery procedures normally available to litigants in other civil actions.

The matters have been related. The court finds consolidation is proper because both sets of parties are claiming ownership to the property. This action will determine who is the rightful owner of the property and the result would dictate whether or not Plaintiffs should be evicted from the property in the UD action. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Consolidation is GRANTED.