LEE & LUM REAL ESTATE, LLC VS. ALOK ARORA, ET AL

August 17, 2026 LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR PAGE 13 Judge: HONORABLE DAVID A. SILBERMAN, DEPARTMENT 11 ________________________________________________________________________ possession of the Premises without Plaintiff’s permission. The latter notice included an election of forfeiture.

Through its Motion to Consolidate Related Actions (the “Motion”), Defendant seeks to consolidate for all purposes a civil action in which the parties are reversed (Case No. 26-CIV-05047 (the “Civil Case”)) with the instant (the “UDL Case”).

Consolidation is a procedure for uniting separate lawsuits for trial, where the cases are pending in the same court and involve common questions of law or fact. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a).) The purpose of consolidation is to enhance trial-court efficiency by avoiding duplication of evidence and procedures, and to avoid the substantial danger of inconsistent adjudications as a result of trying the same issues before different factfinders. The Court considers whether the cases to be consolidated have common issues, and whether undue confusion or prejudice likely would result from consolidation. (Todd- Stenberg v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 976, 979 (Todd-Stenberg).) “The trial court’s decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion.” (Todd- Stenberg, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th 976, 978-79.)

The Court finds consolidation to be appropriate on the following grounds: 1. Plaintiff and Defendant are the only parties to the Civil Case, and both are the only parties to the instant action. (Chhabria Decl., ¶ 4.)

2. The two cases involve the same Lease, the parties’ same decade-long course of dealing regarding its insurance covenant, and the same two notices, as well as common questions of law and fact, such as whether Defendant’s insurance coverage satisfied paragraph 7.1 of the Lease. (See id., ¶¶ 4 & 6.) Accordingly, discovery, motion practice, and trial all will involve overlapping legal and factual issues, documents, witnesses, testimony, and evidence.

3. Defendant would be prejudiced if he were not afforded a full opportunity to litigate his claims and defenses before their foreclosure by the summary UDL Case, but consolidation would not prejudice Plaintiff, which continues to hold and manage the Premises. In particular, Defendant’s theories of mistake, waiver, impossibility, and estoppel cannot be resolved within the summary UDL Case in the same manner in which they can be in the civil action. The UDL Case is not one in which rent is overdue (in fact, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff rejected his June 2026 tender of rent), nor one of holdover (since four years of the Lease term remain).

Instead, the following complex issues of contract and equity are here disputed: whether a specific insurance covenant, as Plaintiff now construes it, is even capable of performance, whether Plaintiff’s own course of conduct modified or waived that covenant, and whether the entire default theory was manufactured to defeat Defendant’s right of first refusal. (Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion, 7:20-23.) Accordingly, the Court has the power and the obligation to consolidate the two cases.

4. Consolidation of the two cases would promote judicial economy and fairness, and avoid inconsistent findings, rulings, orders, and judgments. Further, consolidation would not confuse a

August 17, 2026 LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR PAGE 14 Judge: HONORABLE DAVID A. SILBERMAN, DEPARTMENT 11 ________________________________________________________________________ jury. “Actions may be consolidated, in the discretion of the court, whenever it can be done without prejudice to a substantial right.” (State Farm, supra, 47 Cal.2d 428, 430 (quotation omitted).)

This Court already has ordered the cases “related,” finding that: Each of these cases involves Lee & Lum Real Estate’s lease with Alok Arora, DMD and whether that lease was breached in relation to an insurance provision. The Court therefore finds that under California Rules of Court, Rule 3.300 the cases are “related.” (Order Deeming Cases Related, filed on June 25, 2026 (the “Order”).)

The Court may consolidate cases completely, or partially for trial only. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a).) Defendant requests complete consolidation into the Civil Case, because the Civil Case is already an unlimited civil action that encompasses all of the issues between the parties, while the UDL Case is limited to the single question of possession. The Court has discretion to designate the lead case: “Unless otherwise provided in the order granting the motion to consolidate, the lowest numbered case in the consolidated case is the lead case.” (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.350(b).)

For all of these reasons, the Court GRANTS the Motion to consolidate the proposed cases for all purposes. The Civil Case shall be the lead case.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must email Dept.11@sanmateocourt.org with a copy to all other parties by 4:00 p.m. stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for prevailing party shall prepare for the Court’s signature a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and by the California Rules of Court. Please note that Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv) states in part “prevailing party on a tentative ruling is required to prepare a proposed order REPEATING VERBATIM the tentative ruling” (emphasis added). The order should be e- filed only, do not email or mail a hard copy to the Court.

POSTED: 3:00 PM