Motion to Consolidate
Oak Terrace MHP LLC v. County of San Luis Obispo, et al., 26CVP-0065
Hearing: Motion to Consolidate with 26CV-0088
Date: May 26, 2026
On February 13, 2026, Oak Terrace MHP LLC (Oak Terrace) filed a verified petition for administrative mandamus, mandamus, prohibition or other appropriate relief and declaratory relief pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1904.5 and 1060 against the County of San Luis Obispo, Board of Supervisors, and the San Luis Obispo County Mobilehome Park Rent Review Board (collectively Respondents). This action is case number 26CVP-0065 (the Oak Terrace Action).
Respondents now move pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1048, subdivision (a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.350, to consolidate for all purposes the Oak Terrace Action with 26CV-0088, filed by Buena Vista MHP LLC (Buena Vista) on the same day, February 13, 2026, against the same Respondents (the Buena Vista Action).
The Oak Terrace Action, which is the lower number case, is assigned to Department P2, before the Honorable Michael Kelley. The Buena Vista Action is assigned to Department 2, before the Honorable Craig van Rooyen.
Oak Terrace opposes consolidation.
“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., § 1048.)
Whether to grant consolidation is within the discretion of the trial court. (Todd-Stenberg v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 976, 978.)
Respondents contend that the two matters involve the same issues of fact or law. The County notes that both petitions are nearly identical and ask the Court for largely the same relief, including a reconsideration of the Petitioners’ applications in a manner consistent with Petitioners’ proposed interpretation of the Ordinance. Each Petition also seeks declaratory relief concerning the meaning of the same three sections of the Ordinance, sections 25.02.010. 25.06.010, and 25.07.010. The prayers for relief are the same, other than one paragraph.
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?”
The County contends that resolution of the purely legal question concerning the proper interpretation of the County’s ordinance would resolve each lawsuit, and that having these questions decided separately by different judges could result in inconsistent rulings and further exacerbate the parties’ attempts to resolve this dispute.
Oak Park opposes consolidation, noting that the two petitions challenge separate administrative decisions, based on different facts unique to each petitioner, and will have separate administrative records. It contends consolidation will not promote efficiency and the cases are not functionally identical.
The Oak Park and Buena Vista petitions are filed by different petitioners, but they are represented by the same counsel and were verified by the same authorized representative. The Respondents in the two actions are identical and represented by the same counsel. The two petitions arise from different administrative hearings and will have different administrative records but raise common legal issues regarding proper interpretation of an ordinance.
The Court recognizes that the specific facts of each decision differ, and to the extent that the petitions require consideration of whether there was an abuse of discretion and whether findings were supported by the evidence, it will require separate review of the two administrative records. However, the Court finds that resolution of the correct interpretation of the County ordinance by two separate judges is inefficient, raises a likelihood of conflicting decisions, and will impair the resolution of both disputes. The separate administrative records and factual issues that arise therefrom can be addressed pursuant to further case management.
The Court grants the Respondents’ motion to consolidate the Oak Park Action with the Buena Park Action for all purposes.
The Oak Park Action, 26CVP-0065, shall be the lead case.
Respondents shall file the consolidation order in 26CV-0088.
2