SERGIO HURTADO VS VILLA NOVA DEVELOPING, INC., ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******0157    Hearing Date: March 10, 2020    Dept: 20

Tentative Ruling

Judge David J. Cowan

Department 20

Hearing Date: Tuesday, March 10, 2020

Case Name:         Sergio Hurtado v. Villa Nova Developing, Inc. et al.

Case No.:     *******0157 (lead); 19GDCV00375, 19GDCV00393, 19STLC08999

Motion: Motion to Consolidate

Moving Party: Plaintiff Sergio Hurtado

Responding Party: *Unopposed*

Notice: OK  

Ruling: Plaintiff Hurtado’s Motion to Consolidate is GRANTED.

The OSC re: dismissal in 19STLC08999 is CONTINUED to June 12, 2020 at 8:30 AM in Dept. 20.

The OSCs re: default judgment in 19GDCV00393 and 19GDCV00375 are CONTINUED to June 12, 2020 at 8:30 AM in Dept. 20.

The Case Management Conference set for March 10, 2020 remains on calendar and attendance is expected.

Moving party to give notice.

BACKGROUND

On October 18, 2019, the Court deemed related the following cases: *******0157, 19STLC00845, 19GDCV00375, 19STLC02964, 19GDCV00393, and 19STLC08999. The Court designated *******0157 as the lead case. All cases involved claims against Defendants Villas on Oswego, LLC (“Oswego”) and Villa Nova Developing, Inc. (“Nova”), and all plaintiffs sought relief on mechanics’ liens taken out on property owned by Nova and Oswego, described as 2476-2480 Oswego St., Pasadena, CA 91107 (“the Property”).

*******0157

On January 16, 2019, Plaintiff Sergio Hurtado (“Hurtado”), an individual doing business as S & D Drywall, filed a Complaint against Nova and Oswego.

On April 12, 2019, Hurtado filed a First Amended Complaint against Nova and Oswego, stating causes of action for breach of contract, common counts, foreclosure of a mechanics’ lien on the Property, and enforcement of a mechanics’ lien release bond and a stop payment notice.

On July 18, 2019, default was entered against Nova and Oswego on Hurtado’s complaint.

On February 11, 2020, Hurtado filed a Motion to Consolidate related cases *******0157 (the lead case), 19GDCV00375, 19GDCV00393, and 19STLC08999. Default has been entered against Nova and Oswego in 19GDCV00375 and 19DCV00393, but not in 19STLC08999, as Nova and Oswego have settled with the plaintiff in that action.

On March 3, 2020, Hurtado filed a Notice of Non-Opposition declaring no opposition had been received from Oswego or any other party in the related cases despite proper service. No opposition to the Motion to Consolidate has been filed.

19GDCV00375

On March 28, 2019, plaintiff Capital Rebar, Inc. (“Rebar”) filed a complaint against defendants Mitchell Environmental Concrete, Inc. (“Mitchell Concrete”), Oswego, and Nova, stating causes of action for breach of written contract, common count, and enforcement of a mechanics’ lien on the Property,

On June 28, 2019, default was entered against Nova, Oswego, and Mitchell Concrete on Rebar’s complaint.

On July 8, 2019, Mitchell Concrete filed a cross-complaint against Nova and Oswego and filed an answer to Rebar’s complaint. Mitchell Concrete did not seek to vacate the default.

On December 31, 2019, default was entered against Nova and Oswego on Mitchell Concrete’s cross-complaint.

On March 10, 2020, the Court heard the OSC re: entry of default judgment against Nova and Oswego on Rebar’s complaint.

19GDCV00393

On March 21, 2019, plaintiff Browning Fire Protection, Inc. (“Browning”) filed a complaint against Nova and Oswego stating causes of action for breach of written contract, quantum meruit, common count, and foreclosure of mechanics’ lien against the Property.

On May 15, 2019, Browning sought entry of default against Nova and Oswego, which was denied due to improper statement of the parties’ names.

On June 4, 2019, default was entered against Nova and Oswego on Browning’s complaint.

On March 10, 2020, the Court heard the OSC re: entry of default judgment against Nova and Oswego on Browning’s complaint.

19STLC08999

On September 30, 2019, Plaintiff Ahern Rentals, Inc. (“Ahern Rentals”) filed a limited civil complaint against Nova, Oswego, and defendant Andrew Nowaczek, stating causes of action for breach of contract, open book account, account stated, quantum valebant, breach of guaranty, and foreclosure of a mechanics’ lien on the Property.

On January 15, 2020, Ahern Rentals filed a Notice of Settlement.

On February 3, 2020, Ahern Rentals filed a Stipulation for Entry of Judgment after settling with Oswego, Nova, and Andrew Nowaczek. The proposed order provided that any persons with claims based on liens subsequent to plaintiff’s lien on the Property “be forever barred and foreclosed of, and from, all equity of redemption and claim in, of and to the real property in question, and every part and parcel thereof, from and after the delivery of [the] sheriff’s deed.”

On February 21, 2020, the Court rejected Ahern Rentals’ Stipulation for Entry of Judgment because it appeared that the proposed judgment may foreclose the interests of other entities with claims to the Property. The Court indicated it would enter a money judgment based on the stipulation unless Ahern Rentals provided additional information as to the effects of a judgment of foreclosure on the Property.

On March 10, 2020, the Court heard the OSC re: dismissal pursuant to the stipulation.

DISCUSSION

CCP ; 1048 authorizes the Court to consolidate actions involving a “common question of law or fact” to avoid unnecessary costs or delay. Under the statute and the case law, there are thus two types of consolidation: a consolidation for purposes of trial only, where the two actions remain otherwise separate; and a complete consolidation or consolidation for all purposes, where the two actions are merged into a single proceeding under one case number and result in only one verdict or set of findings and one judgment.” (Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1127, 1147) “Consolidation . . . is permissive, and it is for the trial court to determine whether the consolidation is for all purposes or for trial only.” (Id. at 1149) Consolidation enhances efficiency and avoids the risk of inconsistent relief being granted to different parties. (Todd-Stenberg v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 976, 978-79)

Here, the plaintiffs in these related cases are seeking mutually exclusive relief on liens taken out on the Property following a construction project headed by Nova and Oswego. Accordingly, each case involves a “common question of fact or law,” namely, the priority of the mechanics’ liens. One plaintiff’s foreclosure on a mechanics’ lien would necessarily exclude any other plaintiff from obtaining relief on their mechanics’ lien, as foreclosure sale would extinguish all claims based on subsequent liens. Thus, there is a real possibility of inconsistent relief that consolidation would avoid, and efficiency will be gained by reviewing the facts of these related cases at the same time. Consolidation is necessary to determine priority amongst the plaintiffs’ respective liens. According relief on one lien will necessarily prevent relief on other liens. Accordingly, complete consolidation is necessary, so the Court can assess the facts at issue in all the related cases and determine whose lien has priority in a consolidated decision.

At this time, plaintiffs Hurtado, Rebar, and Browning have not yet sought a court judgment or clerk’s judgment on the defaults entered against Nova and Oswego and have not yet supplied supporting documents. The Court has already rejected Ahern Rental’s proposed judgment because it would extinguish the claims of all other entities with liens on the Property. Therefore, consolidation will not prejudice the timely resolution of the plaintiffs’ claims and will prevent the possibility of inconsistent relief on the mechanics’ liens on the Property.

Additionally, if Mitchell Concrete seeks entry of default judgment against Nova and Oswego, it must move to vacate the default previously entered against it. The Court cannot enter default judgment for Mitchell Concrete on its cross-complaint filed after entry of default.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff Hurtado’s Motion to Consolidate is GRANTED.

The OSC re: dismissal in 19STLC08999 is CONTINUED to June 12, 2020 at 8:30 AM in Dept. 20.

The OSCs re: default judgment in 19GDCV00393 and 19GDCV00375 are CONTINUED to June 12, 2020 at 8:30 AM in Dept. 20.

The Case Management Conference set for March 10, 2020 remains on calendar and attendance is expected.

Moving party to give notice.

Case Number: *******0157    Hearing Date: August 17, 2020    Dept: 20

Ruling

Judge David J. Cowan

Department 20

Date: Monday, August 17, 2020

Case Name: Capital Rebar, Inc. v. Villas on Oswego, LLC et al.

Case No.: *******0157 (lead) / 19GDCV00393 (original)

Application: Default Judgment

Notice: OK

Ruling: Plaintiff Capital Rebar’s application for default judgment in its favor and against Defendants Villas on Oswego, LLC and Villa Nova Developing, Inc. is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

Within 15 days of this Ruling, Capital Rebar shall file an updated default package seeking dismissal of all parties which Capital Rebar is not seeking default judgment against, including Does.

The OSC re: Default Judgment is continued from August 17, 2020 to September 21, 2020, at 8:30 a.m. 

BACKGROUND

On March 28, 2019, Plaintiff Capital Rebar, Inc. filed a Complaint against Defendants Villas on Oswego, LLC, Villa Nova Developing, Inc., Mitchell Environmental Concrete, Inc. (“MEC”) and Does for breach of contract, common counts, and enforcement of a mechanic’s lien.

On June 28, 2019, the clerk entered default against all Defendants.

On July 8, 2019, MEC filed an Answer and Cross-Complaint after entry of default.

On August 12, 2020, Capital Rebar filed its default judgment package for judgment against Villas on Oswego and Villa Nova Developing, but not MEC.

ANALYSIS

CCP ; 585 permits entry of a judgment after a defendant’s default has been entered. CRC Rule 3.1800(a) requires a party seeking default judgment by court judgment must file a Request for Court Judgment (Form CIV-100) and: (1) a brief summary of the case; (2) declarations or other admissible evidence in support of the judgment requested; (3) interest computations as necessary; (4) a memorandum of costs and disbursements; (5) a declaration of nonmilitary status for each defendant against whom judgment is sought; (6) a proposed form of judgment (optional Form JUD-100); (7) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment under CCP sec. 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment; (8) exhibits as necessary; and (9) a request for attorneys’ fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties. Capital Rebar requests a total judgment of $30,498.43 consisting of $19,115.00 in damages, $9,462.09 in prejudgment interest, $1,266.94 in attorney fees, and $654.40 in costs.

Capital Rebar’s request is denied without prejudice for failure to satisfy Rule 3.1800(a)(7) by either dismissing MEC or making an application for separate judgment under CCP sec. 579. The Court can enter default judgment against some but not all defendants only under CCP sec. 579. It is unclear whether MEC is still in default despite recent filings; default was entered before MEC filed its answer and MEC did not move to vacate its default. Capital Rebar also failed to dismiss unnamed Does, which is an independent basis to deny default judgment without prejudice regardless of MEC’s status in this action.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff Capital Rebar’s application for default judgment in its favor and against Defendants Villas on Oswego, LLC and Villa Nova Developing, Inc. is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

Within 15 days of this Ruling, Capital Rebar shall file an updated default package seeking dismissal of all parties Capital Rebar is not seeking default judgment against, including Does.

The OSC re: Default Judgment is continued from August 17, 2020 to September 21, 2020, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 20.