Case Number: VC061935 Hearing Date: April 17, 2014 Dept: 1

#5 – Jung, et al. v. Gatten Sushi USA, Inc., et al. (VC 061 935); K-One Global Construction, Inc. v. Gatten Sushi USA, Inc., et al. (EC 061 057); Gatten Sushi USA, Inc. v. K-One Global Construction, Inc. (BC 515 899)

By way of the present motion, Gatten Sushi USA, Inc. moves this court to transfer case VC 061 935 from the Southeast Judicial District to the Central Judicial District and to consolidate that case with cases EC 061 057 and BC 515 899, which are both pending before different judges in the Central Judicial District. Case EC 061 057 was previously before this court on December 12, 2013, when the court granted K-One Global Construction, Inc.’s motion to transfer that case from the North Central Judicial District (Glendale) to the Central Judicial District. This court granted that motion based on the optional filing requirements of LASC Local Rule 2.3(a)(1)(B) and the ostensible agreement of the parties that the case had not been filed in the proper forum. Case EC 061 057 is now pending before Judge Kevin C. Brazile in Department 20, and case BC 515 899 is pending before Judge Mark Mooney in Department 68. Consequently, all but case VC 061 935 are now being litigated in the Central Judicial District, albeit before different judges. The current status of all three cases can thus be summarized as follows:

• VC 061 935 – Jung, et al. v. Gatten Sushi USA, Inc., et al. – commenced on September 20, 2012, in Southeast Judicial District (Norwalk), pending before Judge Roger Ito, in Department C, and PRESENTLY SET FOR JURY TRIAL ON AUGUST 6, 2014;

• EC 061 057 – K-One Global Construction, Inc. v. Gatten Sushi USA, Inc., et al. – commenced on July 15, 2013, in North Central Judicial District (Glendale), and now pending before Judge Kevin C. Brazile, in Department 20;

• BC 515 899 – Gatten Sushi USA, Inc. v. K-One Global Construction, et al. – commenced on July 23, 2013, in the Central Judicial District, and now pending before Judge Mark Mooney, in Department 68.

Additionally, all three cases involve Gatten Sushi USA, Inc. (Gatten), with case EC 061 057 being the only case that does not also involve K-One Global Construction, Inc. (K-One) and Hyun C. Jung (Jung). All three cases, nonetheless, are concerned with the construction of one or more Sushi restaurants by K-One and Jung on behalf of Gatten. The construction projects were scheduled to be completed in Irvine, West Covina, and Los Angeles. They, in turn, constitute part of a breach of contract and wrongful termination narrative alleged by K-One and Jung.

Given this background, Gatten supports its motion by first highlighting the overarching relatedness of all three cases, next claiming that there was no contractual ground under the optional filing requirements of LASC Local Rule 2.3 for commencing VC 061 935 in the Southeast Judicial District, and finally maintaining that the interests of justice and judicial efficiency would be best served by a transfer. Gatten then goes on to argue as well that all three matters should be consolidated before one court, pursuant to CCP §§ 403 and 1048, CRC 3.300, 3.400, and 3.500, and LASC Local Rule 3.3(h).

These arguments are belatedly opposed by K-One (et al.), which implicitly concedes that the cases are related, but contends that they are not similar enough with respect to their asserted claims to be consolidated and that their litigation postures are no longer in early stages. The opposition, in turn, is addressed by Gatten in its Reply, which first draws the court’s attention to untimely nature of K-One’s opposition. Gatten’s Reply observes as well that the opposition does not argue against the transfer of VC 061 935 and does not supply any evidentiary support for the contention that consolidation of these matters would genuinely prejudice the opposing litigants.

Many of these arguments, both moving and opposing, are inapposite for a number of reasons. First, with respect to consolidation, this court has the discretion under LASC Local Rule 2.3(b)(2) to transfer a civil case from one district to another for the convenience of witnesses or to promote the ends of justice. This court does not have the discretion to consolidate matters, since consolidation is effected by way of motion only after two or more cases are related before the same court. See LASC Local Rule 3.3(g)(1). Hence, the consolidation of all three of these cases will have to be effected by the court in which these matters are ultimately related, if at all. Second, as to the relation of these matters, this court has the discretion to relate these three CIVIL matters only in the event that the pertinent judge under CRC 3.300(h)(1)(A)(B)(C) has not ordered them related. See LASC Local Rule 3.3(f)(3). The pertinent judge, in this instance, is Judge Ito, who presides over the earliest-filed case in the Southeast Judicial District. If he were to relate these matters, he would relate them in the Southeast Judicial District, not the Central Judicial District, and this court would do likewise. Finally, the only remaining discretion under which this court could simply transfer a Southeast Judicial District matter to the Central Judicial District is under LASC Local Rule 2.3(b)(2), for failure to file the case in accordance with the local requirements, for the convenience of witnesses, or to promote the ends of justice. The ends of justice, however, would not ostensibly be served by transferring an action that is only months away from trial from one district to another, regardless of whether other putatively related cases are genuinely related. There are, therefore, no viable grounds on which this court could reasonably justify transferring VC 061 935 to the Central Judicial District.

Accordingly, the present motion is DENIED.