Hodges v. Fillman

# Case Name Tentative Ruling 101 Carranza v. Corbin Reeves Construction, 2025-01520792 KURT FISCHER STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING/WAVERING’S DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT MA3 CORP./REEVES DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT

CONTINUED to 08/31/2026 to allow meet and confer. 102 103 104 105 Hodges v. Fillman, 2024-01442297 MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE – DENIED Plaintiffs/cross-defendants George Thomas Hodges, Jr. and Jane Wong (“Plaintiffs”) move for an order consolidating this action with Michael P. Fillman, et al., v. George Thomas Hodges, Jr., et al., Case 30 2025- 01522929-CU-NP-CJC (the “Fillman Action”). The court previously determined that the cases were not related.

When there are actions involving common questions of law or fact pending, a court may order a joint trial of any or all of the matters in issue in the actions or may order all the actions consolidated, or such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048(a).)

This action involves nuisance, trespass, and premises liability cross-claims, with each side alleging that the other side caused property damage by water intrusion.

The Fillman Action includes causes of action for invasion of privacy, harassment, trespass, elder abuse, financial abuse of an elder, and declaratory and injunctive relief and is based on allegations that Plaintiffs installed surveillance cameras with audio capability directed at the pool area, stairs, and private outdoor living spaces on property owned by the plaintiffs in the Fillman Action.

Plaintiffs contend consolidation is warranted because the actions arise out of the same series of events and consolidation would avoid unnecessary duplication of the presentation of evidence and witnesses. Plaintiffs argue that because the Fillman Action was filed in response to camera and audio recordings produced during discovery in the instant action, the Fillman Action is intertwined with this matter. Plaintiffs also argue that there is a risk of inconsistent findings if consolidation is not ordered, as one jury could find that Plaintiffs’ communications were reasonable efforts to address property damage while another could determine those same communications constitute harassment or elder abuse.

While these actions involve the same parties and arise out of the parties’ relationship as neighbors, the claims asserted in each do not involve common questions of law or fact. The Fillman Action claims for invasion of privacy, harassment, and abuse involves issues of whether Plaintiffs’ installation of a surveillance camera invaded a right to privacy and subjected their elderly neighbors to mental suffering and harassment to such extent as to constitute elder abuse. These issues are unrelated to Plaintiffs’ claims of water intrusion, property damage, and property encroachment. Thus, the Court finds that consolidation would not avoid unnecessary costs or delay and that consolidation is unwarranted.

The Motion to Consolidate is DENIED.