Motion to Consolidate
2025CUWT056925: STEVE RANDALL vs NATREN INC
furtherance of justice." Section 576 further provides that courts may allow amendments "at any stage of the proceedings" upon such terms as may be just. Under this framework, courts should resolve all doubts in favor of permitting amendment. (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.) "If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend." (Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.)
The declaration of Plaintiff counsel (CRC 3.1234) sufficiently explains the basis for the proposed amendments. (Code Civ. Proc., §437(a)(1).) The arguments made by Natren Inc.in opposition regarding piercing the corporate veil; lack of evidentiary support; sufficiency of the proposed IIED cause of action, etc. are issues that may be further investigated in discovery and potentially addressed through subsequent law and motion, but they do not establish a sufficient basis to defeat the motion for leave to amend.
Counsel for Randall is ordered to file and serve the amended complaint forthwith.
Counsel for Randall is ordered to serve notice of the Courts ruling.
2. Defendants Natren, Inc.s, Trenev Enterprises, LLCs, Natasha Trenevs and Yordan Trenevs Motion to Consolidate
Defendants Natren, Inc.s, Trenev Enterprises, LLCs, Natasha Trenevs and Yordan Trenevs Motion to Consolidate is GRANTED as to the cases Randall v. Natren, case no. 2025CUWT056925 and Natren et al. v. Randall et al., case no. 2026CUMC061843.
The motion is denied as to consolidation of Castro v. Natren, case no. 2025CUWT055134.
DISCUSSION
Under California Code of Civil Procedure § 1048(a), a court may order a joint hearing or trial, or consolidate actions, when the cases involve a common question of law or fact pending before the court. Action 1 (Labor/FEHA): Steve Randall v. Natren, Inc., et al. (Ventura Superior Court case no. 2025CUWT056925) filed August/September 2025 in Los Angeles County Superior Court and transferred to Ventura County Superior Court on January 16, 2026. Action 2 (Corporate/Tort): Natren, Inc., et al. v. Steve Randall, et al. (Ventura County Superior Court case no. 2026CUMC061843) filed February, 2026.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
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; State Farm Mut.
2025CUWT056925: STEVE RANDALL vs NATREN INC
The Court considered the following: A. Commonality of Parties Both actions directly involve Steve Randall (as Controller) and Natren, Inc. (along with key principals/officers, including Natasha Trenev and Yordan Trenev). B. Overlapping Core Questions of Fact Both lawsuits center on the same nucleus of operative facts occurring between 2023 and 2025: 1. The Accuracy of Financial Statements: Randalls Complaint asserts he was retaliated against for refusing demands from management to alter/inflate financial records to show profitability. Natrens Complaint asserts Randall negligently/intentionally produced inaccurate financial statements that overstated losses, hid company performance, and refused to perform routine duties.
2. Reason for Termination: Randall claims he was unlawfully fired in July of 2025 due to disability discrimination and whistleblower retaliation for resisting accounting fraud. Natren claims his termination was part of a valid corporate restructuring and finance department dissolution following his performance failures and corporate waste.
3. Defamation & Misrepresentations: Both complaints allege false statements were made to third parties (lenders, auditors, investors, etc.) regarding the accuracy of Natren's 20232024 P&L statements. C. Judicial Economy & Risk of Inconsistent Rulings The purpose of consolidation is merely to promote trial convenience and economy by avoiding duplication of procedure, particularly in the proof of issues common to both actions." (Wouldridge v. Burns (1968) 265 Cal.App.2d 82, 86.) Trying these actions separately would require duplicate testimony from the same key witnesses (Steve Randall, Natasha Trenev, Yordan Trenev, outside auditors, etc.) and duplicate review of the same financial records.
Judicial economy strongly weighs in favor of consolidation. Furthermore, separate trials carry a strong risk of conflicting factual findings, such as a finding that Randall properly refused to falsify books (supporting retaliation), conflicting with a finding that he breached his fiduciary duty by misrepresenting the same books.
D. Risk of Prejudice
Due to the substantial commonality of parties and issues in the two cases, the Court does not find a significant risk of prejudice if the matters are consolidated.
Based on the foregoing, these matters are ordered consolidated for all purposes.
2025CUWT056925: STEVE RANDALL vs NATREN INC
Action 3 (Labor/FEHA): Castro v. Natren, (Ventura County Superior Court case no. 2025CUWT055134) filed December of 2025. The motion to consolidate the Castro v. Natren case is DENIED. This case will remain related but not consolidated. The parties and factual basis in this case are substantially different from the others. There is not sufficient commonality to warrant consolidation. Castro v. Natren, case no. 2025CUWT055134 is deemed related to the consolidated matters and transferred to Courtroom 43 for further handling.
The trial date in Courtroom 20 is vacated. The Court schedules a Case Management Conference in all three cases for November 12, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom 43. The Court notes that Jose Venegas vs Natren Inc., et al., case no. 2024CUOE035002 has not been deemed related and remains assigned to Courtroom 41 for all purposes. Counsel for Natren is ordered to serve notice of the Courts ruling on all parties.
4