Case Number: BC659602    Hearing Date: February 18, 2020    Dept: 58

Judge John P. Doyle

Department 58

Hearing Date:             February 18, 2020

Case Name:                 American Grandstand Seating, Co., Inc. v. United Production Services, Inc., et al.

Case No.:                    BC659602 (related to 19STCV06045)

Motion:                       Motion to Consolidate

Moving Party:             American Grandstand Seating, Co., Inc., Michael H. Brown, and Michael D. Brown

Responding Party:       Unopposed

Tentative Ruling:      The Motion to Consolidate is granted.

American Grandstand Seating, Co., Inc., Michael H. Brown, and Michael D. Brown seek consolidation of related cases nos. BC659602 and 19STCV06045.

Code Civ. Proc. § 1048(a) provides, “[w]hen 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.”

The moving parties provide as follows.

On January 10, 2018, in the Lead Action [(BC659602)], United Production Services, Inc., Brown United, Inc., John Brown and Tamara Brown entered into a settlement agreement with American Grandstand Seating Co., Inc. and Michael H. Brown. (RJN, Ex. A, p. 3:19-20.)  On January 19, 2018, by order of this Court, the Lead Action was dismissed without prejudice, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, and jurisdiction specifically retained for enforcement of the settlement agreement. (Rice Decl., Ex. A.)

The Brown United Action [(19STCV06045)] was commenced on February 21, 2019, by United Production Services, Inc., Brown United, Inc., John Brown and Tamara Brown, and challenges the very settlement agreement in the Lead Action. The Brown United Action alleges causes of action against American Grandstand Seating Co., Inc., Michael H. Brown and Michael D. Brown (an owner of American Grandstand Seating Co., Inc.) for (1) breach of the settlement agreement, (2) conversion in breach of the settlement agreement, and (3) fraud in the execution of the settlement agreement. (RJN, Ex. A, p. 4:12-13; p. 7:1-2, 19-20.) Plaintiff in the Lead Action now seeks to enforce the settlement agreement.

Good cause having been shown, cases nos. BC659602 and 19STCV06045 are consolidated.  The Motion is granted.