Judge: Wesley L. Hsu, Case: 22STCV01107, Date: 2023-03-29 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV01107 Hearing Date: March 29, 2023 Dept: L
Plaintiff Zhou’s Investment & Management, Inc. dba
The Noodle’s Motion to Consolidate Actions is DENIED.
Background
Plaintiff
Zhou’s Investment & Management, Inc. dba The Noodle (“Zhou”) alleges as
follows:
On
September 13, 2011, Zhou and Defendant U.N.T. Atia Co II (“U.N.T.”) entered
into a
Shopping
Center Lease Agreement (“Lease Agreement”) whereby Zhou leased from U.N.T. the
premises
known as 19755 E. Colima Road #C, Rowland Heights, CA 91748 (“subject
property”).
In or about 2012 and 2013, the parties agreed to have Zhou advance $70,000 to
pay
for
repair and installation of common space walkway and an oil tank, and that U.N.T.
would later
reimburse
Zhou, with interest. Defendant Great New World Equity LLC (“GNWE”) is U.N.T.’s
successor-in-interest.
In March 2021, Zhou noticed that the subject property’s roof was
leaking.
Zhou has asked that the roof be repaired, without success. On March 7, 2021,
Zhou
demanded
payment of the advanced $70,000 plus interest. It was subsequently agreed, via
a
written
memorialization dated March 8, 2021, that the monies owed were to offset Zhou’s
rental
obligations.
Zhou has been paying rent in accordance with this compromise ever since.
On
September 23, 2022, Zhou received a Three-Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit, which
was
made
in retaliation for Zhou’s repeated requests that the roof be repaired.
On
October 5, 2022, Zhou filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), asserting causes
of action
against
U.N.T., GNWE and Does 1-10 for:
1. Breach
of Written Agreement
2. Declaratory
Relief
On October 17, 2022, Case Nos. 22PSCV01107 and 22PSCV01124
were related; Case No. 22PSCV01107 was deemed the lead case.
On October 28, 2022, Zhou dismissed U.N.T., without
prejudice.
A Case Management Conference is set for March 29, 2023.
Again, on October 17, 2022, Case Nos. 22PSCV01107 and
22PSCV01124 were related; Case No. 22PSCV01107 was deemed the lead case.
A Case Management Conference is set for March 29, 2023.
Legal Standard
“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, subd. (a).)
“The purpose of consolidation is merely to promote trial
convenience and economy by avoiding duplication of procedure, particularly in
the proof of issues common to both actions.” (Estate of Baker (1982) 131
Cal.App.3d 471, 485 [quotation marks and citation omitted].)
“There are two types of consolidation: a complete consolidation
resulting in a single action, and a consolidation
of separate actions for trial. Under the former procedure, which may be
utilized where the parties are identical and the causes could have been joined,
the pleadings are regarded as merged, one set of findings is made, and one
judgment is rendered. In a consolidation
for trial, the pleadings, verdicts, findings and judgments are kept separate;
the actions are simply tried together for the sake of convenience and judicial
economy.” (Sanchez v. Superior Court
(1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 1391, 1396 [citation omitted].)
“Consolidation under
section 1048 is permissive, and the trial court granting consolidation must
determine whether the consolidation will be for all purposes or will be
limited.” (Committee for Responsible
Planning v. City of Indian Wells (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 191, 196, fn. 5.)
“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.” (California Rules of Court
[“CRC”] Rule 3.350(a)(1).) “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 (C)
Must have a proof of service filed as part of the motion.” (CRC Rule 3.350(b).)
Discussion
Zhou moves for an order consolidating Case Nos. 22PSCV01107
and 22PSCV01124.
The motion is denied.
“In unlawful detainer proceedings, ordinarily the only
triable issue is the right to possession of the disputed premises, along with
incidental damages resulting from the unlawful detention. Ordinarily, issues
respecting the title to the property cannot be adjudicated in an unlawful
detainer action.” (Martin-Bragg v. Moore (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th
367, 385 [citations omitted].)
“The denial of certain procedural rights enjoyed by litigants
in ordinary actions is deemed necessary in order to prevent frustration of the
summary proceedings by the introduction of delays and extraneous issues.” (Id.
[citations omitted].)
“However, the trial court has the power to consolidate an
unlawful detainer proceeding with a simultaneously pending action in which
title to the property is in issue. That is because a successful claim of title
by the tenant would defeat the landlord's right to possession.” (Id.
[citation omitted].) “When an unlawful detainer proceeding and an unlimited
action concerning title to the property are simultaneously pending, the trial
court in which the unlimited action is pending may stay the unlawful detainer
action until the issue of title is resolved in the unlimited action, or it may
consolidate the actions.” (Id. [citation omitted].)
On
October 5, 2022, Zhou filed a FAC in Case No. 22PSCV01107 against U.N.T. and
GNWE
for
(1) Breach of Written Agreement and (2) Declaratory Relief. U.N.T. has since
been
dismissed.
Zhou alleges therein that it entered into a Shopping Center Lease Agreement
(“Lease
Agreement”)
with U.N.T. on September 13, 2011, whereby Zhou leased from U.N.T. (i.e.,
GNWE’s
predecessor-in-interest) the premises known as 19755 E. Colima Road #C, Rowland
Heights,
CA 91748 (“subject property”); that, in or about 2012 and 2013, the parties
agreed to
have
Zhou advance $70,000 to pay for repair and installation of common space walkway
and an
oil
tank, and that U.N.T. would later reimburse Zhou, with interest; that, in March
2021, Zhou
unsuccessfully
asked that the subject property’s roof be repaired; that, on March 7, 2021,
Zhou
demanded
payment of the advanced $70,000 plus interest; that was subsequently agreed,
via a
written
memorialization dated March 8, 2021, that the monies owed were to offset Zhou’s
rental
obligations;
that Zhou has been paying rent in accordance with this compromise ever since;
and
that
on September 23, 2022, Zhou received a Three-Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit,
which was
made
in retaliation for Zhou’s repeated requests that the roof be repaired.
Zhou
asserts that the aforesaid actions involve the same parties and common
questions of fact