THEODORE NICOLS, ET AL VS DARA WEINTRAUB, ET AL

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****2198    Hearing Date: July 29, 2020    Dept: B

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT

Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka Wednesday, July 29, 2020

Department B Calendar No. 8

PROCEEDINGS

Theodore Nicols, et al. v. Dara Weintraub, et al.

****2198

1. Dara Weintraub’s Motion to Consolidate

   TENTATIVE RULING

   Dara Weintraub’s Motion to Consolidate is denied.

   The trial court has discretion to consolidate actions involving common questions of law or fact. Code Civ. Proc., ;1048. The purpose of consolidation is “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.

   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. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1956) 47 Cal.2d 428, 430–31; Todd-Stenberg v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 976, 978-79.

   Dara Weintraub, Defendant, in Case No. ****2198, and Plaintiff in related Case No. 19STCV06628, moves for an order consolidating the two cases for all purposes including trial. Defendant contends that Case Nos. ****2198 and 19STCV00628 should be consolidated because both matters consist of fundamental common issues of law and fact, the resolution of which would effectively resolve both actions.

   The Court finds that convenience and economy will not be fostered by consolidation of the two cases. Consolidation will not avoid duplication of resources and the evidence that will be required to prove or disprove the claims in both cases are not common to both actions.

   The instant action for Partition involves the request for partition of property, commonly known as 1241 Shelley St., Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 (“Shelley Street property”), jointly owned by the parties. The resolution of this partition action essentially involves a rather straightforward process: the sale of the Shelley Street property either by Court order or agreement of the parties.

   As to the related action, 19STCV06628 (“Marvin action”), the underlying factual disputes and related discovery will relate to issues that are much different to the partition action, including issues related to palimony and custody. Apparently, discovery in this action remains delayed. The claims made by Weintraub in the Marvin action are being vigorously disputed by Theodore Nicols (“Nicols”) as the Defendant in that action.

   The Shelley Street property is only mentioned in passing in the Marvin action with a mere reference that Nicols had filed a partition action. There are no specific claims made by Weintraub in the Marvin action related to the Shelley Street property. The Quiet Title cause of action only makes a claim to title to the property located at 41679 Mockingbird Drive, Big Bear Lake, CA 92315.

   Therefore, the Court finds that the purpose of consolidation - to promote trial convenience and economy by avoiding duplication of procedure, particularly in the proof of issues common to both actions – is not present in the actions. In addition, further delay to the partition action may cause prejudice to Nicols.

   Thus, the motion for consolidation is denied.

   Plaintiff Nicols is ordered to give notice of this ruling.