JESSIE COLVIN, JR vs LINDER & ASSOCIATES REAL ESTATE SERVICES UNLIMITED

Seventh, the Court does not find grounds for discretionary relief, for the following reasons:

1. The Court lacks evidence of the recovery progress of the attorney having the injured hip over a substantial period of time involved. A doctor's declaration is desirable, where proof with regard to health of the declarant was inconclusive, for purposes of deciding relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473. (Davis v. Thayer (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 892, 909.)

2. Counsel had plenty of time to make alternative arrangements for handling the opposition in order to contend with the press of business and short staffing, such as bringing in counsel to assist, or timely seeking a continuance and extended opposition deadline. To constitute grounds for relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, generally attorneys' exceptional workload must be accompanied by a factor outside attorneys' control in an unmanageable situation, such as mistakes of clerical staff. (Huh v. Wang (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 1406, 1424.) Being busy and experiencing stress in meeting deadlines in the practice of law alone is not excusable neglect. (Ambrose v. Michelin North America, Inc. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1355 [counsel unsuccessfully argued the stresses of a busy practice, the hurry to meet deadlines and obligations of other pending litigation].)

3. There are instances of neglect involved, such as failure to file or to argue regarding a Notice of Settlement that would render moot the Motion for Summary Judgment. Attorneys' negligence amounting to conduct falling below the standard of care in the profession is imputed to their clients, and does not constitute excusable neglect in support of relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473. (Hopkins & Carley v. Gens (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1401, 1415; Zamora v. Clayborn Contracting Group, Inc. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 249, 258.)

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, for reasons stated above, the Court denies the Motion.

CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 311 Tentative Ruling

JESSIE COLVIN, JR vs LINDER & ASSOCIATES REAL ESTATE SERVICES UNLIMITED | September 4, 2026 8:30 AM

| NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: NOTICE OF RELATED CASES; DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES.

RULING: The Court finds that the following cases, 24STCV18850 and 24STCV20932 are related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a). 24STCV18850 is the lead case. For good cause shown, said cases are assigned to Judge Doreen B. Boxer in Department 311 at Stanley Mosk Courthouse for all purposes. All hearings in cases other than the lead case are advanced and taken off calendar. The Motion to Consolidate filed in 24STCV18850 is granted. Case number 24STCV20932 is ordered consolidated with number 24STCV18850, for all purposes. Defendant to give notice.

I. BACKGROUND

The Court incorporates by reference the Background section of the Minutes entered July 15, 2025. On July 14, 2026, LINDER &ASSOCIATES REAL ESTATE SERVICES, UNLIMITED (Defendant) filed the Notice of Related Case. On July 27, 2026, Defendant filed the Motion to Consolidate this action with case number 24STCV20932, as involving interrelated aspects, including the same parties and rented residence. No Opposition has been filed to this matter.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

"Cases may not be consolidated unless they are in the same department. A motion to consolidate two or more cases may be noticed and heard after the cases, initially filed in different departments, have been related into a single department, or if the cases were already assigned to that department." (Super. Ct. LA County, Local Rules, rule 3.3(g)(1).)

"When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1048, subd. (a).)

An order determining whether to consolidate is discretionary. (Todd-Stenberg v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 976, 978.)

The lowest numbered or first filed case is deemed to be the lead case where subsequent documents must be filed, unless otherwise ordered, and consolidation may be for all purposes including trial. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350(b)-(c); Super. Ct. LA County, Local Rules, rule 3.3(g)(2).)

III. ANALYSIS

Defendant opines that Plaintiff's two cases are interrelated. Specifically, in this action, Plaintiff's claims, focusing on alleged privacy invasion, arise from Plaintiff's tenancy at 1521 Wilcox Ave, Unit 204, Los Angeles. In Plaintiff's subsequent case, emphasizing habitability and harassment allegations, Plaintiff addresses Defendant's subsequent actions at the same property, allegedly done in retaliation for filing the earlier case.

"Actions pending before the same court that involve a common question of law or fact may be ordered consolidated in part or for all purposes." (Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Cnty. of Los Angeles (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 317, 354.)

Here, it is clear that the cases allege common questions of law and fact, concerning Plaintiff's tenancy and Defendant's related conduct. For instance, the Complaint in case number 24STCV20932, at page 2, line 27, expressly references this case filed on July 30, 2024.

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court deems the cases related into this Department, and orders that the Motion to Consolidate is granted.

Case Number: 24STCV29475 Hearing Date: September 4, 2026 Dept: 311 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 311 Tentative Ruling 24STCV29475 DELIA MERCEDES CARDONA, et al. vs K3 HOLDINGS LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. | September 4, 2026 8:30 AM | | | NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO QUASH THIRD-PARTY BUSINESS