Midland Credit Management Inc. vs. Philip Cohen

Court intends, on its own motion, to set the matter for dismissal pursuant to CCP section 583.420 and vacate the trial date set for September 18, 2026 at 11:00 a.m.

7.CL0003816 Midland Credit Management Inc. vs. Philip Cohen

Appearance required by Plaintiff to show cause as to why this case should not be dismissed and/or Plaintiff sanctioned for failure to serve the Summons and Complaint on Defendant despite the fact this case has been pending for over four (4) months. Absent good cause being shown, the Court intends, on its own motion, to set the matter for dismissal pursuant to CCP section 583.420 and vacate the trial date set for October 16, 2026 at 11:00 a.m.

8. CU0002569 Greg Bomhoff et al vs. Lake of the Pines Association, a California non-profit mutual benefit Corporation et al

Motion to Consolidate

Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion to consolidate for all purposes is GRANTED.

Code of Civil Procedure § 1048 grants discretion to the trial court to consolidate actions involving common questions of law or fact. A consolidation of actions does not affect the rights of the parties. The purpose of consolidation is to avoid unnecessary costs or delay, avoid duplication of procedure, particularly in the proof of issues common to both actions, and avoid inconsistent results by hearing and deciding common issues together. See Estate of Baker (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 471, 485. Each case presents its own facts and circumstances, but 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.

See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1956) 47 Cal.2d 428, 430–431.

Here, because both CU0001216 and CU0002569 involve identical parties and involve common questions of fact and law, and because no party opposes the motion, the Court finds consolidation is in the interest of justice and GRANTS the motion