Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GEORGE LANDT, individually and as co- Case No.: 3:25-cv-01364-RBM-DEB trustees of the Landt Family Trust; et al., 12 ORDER DENYING WITHOUT Plaintiffs, 13 PREJUDICE MOTION TO v. CONSOLIDATE 14 M&E BROTHERS, LLC; et al., 15 [Doc. 14] Defendants. 16 17 18 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Consolidate. (Doc. 14.) 19 Defendants M&E Brothers, LLC and Flor De Lys Barawid (collectively, the “M&E 20 Defendants”) do not oppose the Motion to Consolidate. (See Doc. 25.) Defendants Kim 21 Buhler and Norman Alton Hortman, III, individually and as co-trustees of The Norman 22 Alton Hortman and Barabara Hortman Revocable Trust No. 1 Dated July 2, 1985 23 (collectively, the “Hortman Defendants”) filed an Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to 24 Consolidate. (Doc. 26.) Plaintiffs filed a Reply to Hortman Parties’ Opposition to Motion 25 to Consolidate. (Doc. 27.) 26 The Court finds this matter suitable for determination without oral argument 27 pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). Having reviewed the filings above, and for the 28 reasons below, the Motion to Consolidate (Doc. 14) is DENIED without prejudice. 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 Plaintiffs seek to consolidate this case, Landt v. M&E Brothers, LLC, 25-cv-01364- 3 RBM-DEB (the “Landt Action”) with Pacific Resources Associates LLC v. Suzy Cleaners, 4 20-cv-00234-RBM-DEB (the “Pacific Resources Action”). (Doc. 14 at 2.)1 Both actions 5 concern a number of businesses in the Valley Plaza shopping center in Escondido, 6 California. (Doc. 246 at 2–4 (previous Court Order summarizing the allegations).) At 7 issue is who should be liable for the costs of cleaning up perchloroethylene that 8 contaminated the soil beneath the shopping center. (Id.) 9 A. The Pacific Resources Action 10 The Pacific Resources Action comprises two consolidated cases: (1) 20-cv-00234 11 Pacific Resources Associates LLC v. Suzy Cleaners and (2) 22-cv-01892 M&E Brothers, 12 LLC v. The Estate of Barbara Hortman et al. Those cases were filed on February 6, 2020 13 and November 30, 2022, respectively, and were consolidated on June 13, 2023. (20-cv- 14 0234, ECF No. 1; 22-cv-01892, ECF Nos. 1, 20.)2 Before the Court are the remaining 15 crossclaims and third-party claims in 20-cv-00234,3 as well as the complaint, crossclaims, 16 third-party claims, and counterclaims in 22-cv-01892.4 17 Discovery concluded on May 30, 2025 (see Doc. 323), and a new deadline for 18 summary judgment motions will be set soon. (See Docs. 187, 188 (vacating scheduling 19 20 21 1 The Court cites the CM/ECF electronic pagination for filings unless otherwise noted. 2 The rest of the citations in this section, including the footnotes in this section, are to the 22 docket in 20-cv-00234-RBM-DEB. 23 3 See Doc. 171 (Notice of Settlement between Plaintiff Pacific Resources Associates LLC and all defendants); Doc. 115 (Kim Defendants’ Second Amended Third-Party Claim); 24 Doc. 129 (Hortman Defendants’ Crossclaims and Third-Party Claims); Doc. 91 (Defendant 25 Angela Hong’s Crossclaims). 4 See, e.g., Doc. 209 (Plaintiff M&E Brothers LLC’s Second Amended Complaint against 26 Hortman Defendants); Doc. 214 (Kim Defendants’ Amended Crossclaim against Hortman 27 Defendants and Third-Party Claim against M&E Brothers LLC); Doc. 245 (Defendant Carbone’s Crossclaims and Counterclaims); Doc. 254 (Kim Defendants’ Counterclaim 28 1 order deadlines); Doc. 344 (status conference regarding scheduling).) 2 B. The Landt Action 3 The Landt Action was filed on May 29, 2025. (Doc. 1.)5 Plaintiffs filed their 4 Amended Complaint on August 7, 2025. (Doc. 17.) The M&E Defendants filed Answers 5 to the Amended Complaint (Docs. 20, 21), and the Hortman Defendants filed a Motion to 6 Dismiss. (Doc. 22.) That Motion to Dismiss is fully briefed and pending before the Court. 7 (See Docs. 24, 30.) Discovery has not yet begun, nor has a Case Management Conference 8 been scheduled given the pending motions in this case. 9 II. LEGAL STANDARD 10 “If actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may: 11 (1) join for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the actions; (2) consolidate the 12 actions; or (3) issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 13 42(a). “The purpose of Rule 42 is to give the district court broad discretion to decide how 14 cases on its docket are to be tried so that the business of the court may be dispatched with 15 expedition and economy while providing justice to the parties.” Taylor v. Amazon.com 16 Servs. LLC, No. 1:24-cv-01165-KES-BAM, 2025 WL 307469, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 17 2025) (cleaned up). Under Rule 42(a), the Court “weighs the saving of time and effort 18 consolidation would produce against any inconvenience, delay, or expense that it would 19 cause.” Huene v. United States, 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984). The Court has “broad 20 discretion to consolidate complaints.” Garity v. APWU Nat’l Labor Org., 828 F.3d 848, 21 855–56 (9th Cir. 2016). “The moving party bears the burden of showing consolidation is 22 appropriate.” Taylor, 2025 WL 307649, at *4 (citations omitted). 23 III. DISCUSSION 24 Plaintiffs argue that consolidation is proper because the Landt and Pacific Resources 25 Actions involve common questions of law and fact, and consolidation will improve trial 26 27 28 1 efficiency and prevent inconsistent adjudications. (Doc. 14-3 at 7–9.) The Hortman 2 Defendants argue that consolidation is not appropriate because the Actions are in 3 “drastically different case postures” and because consolidation brings with it the potential 4 for undue prejudice stemming from the Landt Action’s parties’ current lack of discovery. 5 (Doc. 26 at 5–8.)6 6 The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that the two Actions share some common questions 7 of fact and law. At their cores, they both concern the contamination of the soil below the 8 Valley Plaza shopping center, and several of the parties in the Landt Action are also parties 9 in the Pacific Resources Action. The core legal questions—liability and allocation for the 10 costs of cleaning up the soil contamination—are also similar in both Actions. Nonetheless, 11 the Court finds that consolidation is not appropriate at this time because the Actions are in 12 different procedural postures and the risk of inconsistent adjudications is low. 13 First, consolidation would delay the Landt Actions’ progression toward trial. The 14 Landt Action has not yet been set for a Case Management Conference and has a motion to 15 dismiss pending, whereas the Pacific Resources Action has been pending for nearly six 16 years and will soon have a deadline for filing motions for summary judgment. Accord 17 Taylor, 2025 WL 307469, at *5 (finding that the effort to be saved from consolidation was 18 outweighed by the delay that would result because one case was eight years old and the 19 other was “in the earliest stage of litigation”); Dahhan v. OvaScience, Inc., Civil Action 20 No. 1:17-cv-10511-IT, Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-12312-IT, 2018 WL 3429901, at *3 21 (D. Mass. July 16, 2018) (declining to consolidate cases because there was “a pending and 22 23 24 6 In light of the Court’s ruling, it does not reach the Hortman Defendants’ arguments that: 25 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Consolidate should be dismissed for failure to adequately meet and confer; Plaintiffs’ counsel’s declaration violates the advocate-witness rule; and Plaintiffs’ 26 counsel may have a conflict of interest. See Liu v. Barrelet, Case No.:3:23-cv-02186- 27 RBM-SBC, 2025 WL 2109003, at *5 (S.D. Cal. July 28, 2025) (declining to dismiss the plaintiff’s motion based on a conceded failure to timely meet and confer and proceeding to 28 1 || fully briefed motion to dismiss in [one], and no responsive pleading yet [in the other]’’). 2 ||Second, “the threat of inconsistent rulings is low considering both Actions have been 3 || assigned to the same judge who has knowledge of the facts and procedural background of 4 ||both Actions.” Evraz Inc., N.A. v. Travelers Indem. Co., Civ. No. 3:11-cv-00233-AC, 5 |}2013 WL 6241984, at *3 (D. Ore. Dec. 3, 2013). 6 The Court is thus not persuaded that judicial economy would be served by 7 || consolidating the two Actions at this point, although the Court may see it differently in the 8 || future depending on the progress of discovery in the Landt Action and any other relevant 9 ||developments. Accordingly, the Court will deny Plaintiffs’ Motion to Consolidate 10 ||(Doc. 14) without prejudice to any party’s ability to file a renewed motion to consolidate 11 a later date. 12 IV. CONCLUSION 13 For the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Consolidate (Doc. 14) is DENIED without 14 || prejudice. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 || DATE: January 27, 2026 Bibra Meatewes 18 ON. RUTH BERMGDEZ! MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28