This is a Motion to Consolidate five limited civil cases with the class action entitled Bhayani, et  al. v. The JAM Limited Partnership, et al.  110cv167490  for all purposes or, in the alternative, for the purposes of briefing and hearing a motion for summary adjudication of the claims in the individual actions.  The class action was tried before a jury between March and April, 2014.  On or about April 15, 2014, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of Plaintiffs’ and since that time, there have been various post-trial motions and the matter is now on appeal.

The defendants in the five limited civil cases seeking consolidation with the class action are all former tenants of the JAM Limited Partnership (“JAM LP”) who allegedly damaged their apartments and owe money in excess of their security deposits.  In their moving papers, counsel for the Plaintiff Class and the individual defendants (in the limited civil cases) argue that since these cases involve common questions of law and fact, the Court should exercise its discretion to consolidate the cases.  Specifically, counsel argues that the claims made by JAM LP in the limited civil cases is identical to the breach of contract claims that the jury rejected as to the class representatives in the class action trial.  Counsel further argues that since many of the jury’s findings in the class action trial regarding JAM LP’s security deposit practices will be dispositive of their claims against the unnamed class members, consolidation will avoid duplication and further the interests of judicial economy and avoid inconsistent results.

In their opposition papers, JAM LP argues that the Motion to Consolidate should be denied for the following reasons: (1) the motion is procedurally improper as the class action has already been tried and is on appeal; (2) moving party’s reliance on the doctrine of res judicata is misplaced as the claims in the limited civil cases were not adjudicated in the class action; (3) moving party opposed inclusion of these claims prior to the class action trial and should be judicially estopped from bringing the present motion; and (4) JAM LP did not have the opportunity to put on evidence of damages incurred beyond the security deposit and to consolidate these cases with a matter that has already been tried would deny them their right of due process.

In reply, counsel for the moving party argues that even though the class action has been tried, it is still “pending” according to CCP 1049 and that the issues decided in the class action are the same as the issues in the five limited civil cases.  Counsel further maintains that it would be inefficient and potentially inconsistent to require the parties to individually litigate their claims in front of different judges and/or juries.

Discussion:  As noted above, the class action has already proceeded to trial and is on appeal.  Although the class action case is still technically pending pursuant to CCP 1049 because of the  appeal,  the attempt to consolidate five lawsuits that have not been tried with a matter that has already proceeded to a verdict is untimely.  Counsel for JAM LP makes a valid point that they attempted inclusion of these claims prior to trial and the Court denied their request.  JAM LP has the right to present their  evidence as to each of these limited cases and the former tenant’s have the right to raise any appropriate legal defense including, if appropriate, res judicata.  Consolidating these cases with a matter that has already proceeded to verdict simply makes no sense and would potentially undermine JAM LP’s right to due process.  Accordingly, the Motion to Consolidate the five limited civil cases with the class action case is DENIED.