Preview
William L. Adams SBN 166027
1 JOHNSTON | THOMAS, Attorneys at Law
1400 N. Dutton Ave., Suite 21
2 Santa Rosa, CA 95401
Telephone: (707) 545-6542
3 Facsimile: (707) 545-1522
Email: wadams@johnstonthomas.com
4
Attorneys for Defendant
5 TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT
6
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SONOMA
10 FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID AND Case No. SCV-266225
ASTRID SCHMID, and consolidated cases SCV-266731 and SCV-
11 270339
Plaintiffs,
12
v. NOTICE OF FILING OF ORDER
13 GRANTING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
CASE NO. SCV-270339 INTO CASE NO.
14 TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE SCV-266225
DEPARTMENT (erroneously sued as TWO [CRC 3.350 ]
15 ROCK FIRE DEPARTMENT),
16 Defendant. Trial Call: November 4, 2022
Time: 8:30 a.m.
17 Dept.: 19
18 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
19 Notice is hereby given that effective July 29, 2022, the Sonoma County Superior Court
20 ordered the consolidation of Case No. SCV-270339, Schmid v. Two Rock Volunteer Fire
21 Department; into Case No. SCV-266225, Schmid v. Two Rock Volunteer Fire Department, as set
22 forth the true and correct copy of the Court’s “Order After Hearing on Defendants’ Motion to
23 Vacate Trial Date; To Establish Cut-off Dates for Discovery and Motions Based on New Trial
24 Date; Motion to Consolidate Action” entered July 29, 2022, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”.
25 DATED: August 23, 2022 JOHNSTON | THOMAS, Attorneys at Law, PC
26
By:
27 William L. Adams, Counsel for Defendant
TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT
-1-
NOTICE OF FILING OF ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
EXHIBIT A
HON. GARY NADLER
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
Courtroom 19
3055 Cleveland Avenue
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
(707)
L.
521-6602
\OOONONUIAWNu—n
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
|
1 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SONOMA
FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID AND Case No. SCV-266225 and
ASTRID SCHMID,
k: consolidated action SCV-266731
Plaintifi‘s, ORDER AFTER HEARING ON
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION T0 VACATE
vs. TRIAL DATE; TO ESTABLISH CUT-OFF
DATES FOR DISCOVERY AND MOTIONS
BASED ON NEW TRIAL DATE; MOTION
TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE TO CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS
DEPARTMENT, A California Nonprofit Public
Benefit Corporation,
Hearing Date: July 27, 2022
Defendant. Time: 3:00 p.m.
Dept: 19
fl
Trial Date: November 4, 2022
AND CONSOLIDATED ACTION
NNNNNNNNNHr—IHHr—Iwr—Iflr—Ir—t
The parties and counsel appeared
WVQMAMNHCOWQQM#WNHO
at the Court’s Law and Motion hearing on July 27,
2022. Plaintifl‘ Frear Stephen Schmid appeared. Defendant Two Rock Volunteer Fire Department
appeared through counsel William L. Adams. Defendant County of Sonoma appeared through
counsel Michael King. Defendant ThompsonGas, LLC appeared through counsel William L.
Adams. No other panics appeared.
The court grants the motion to consolidate with regard to SCV-270339, but otherwise denies
the motion. As such, SCV-270339 shall be consolidated with the previously consolidated case
numbers SCV-266225 and SCV-26673 l; with the lead case number for these consolidated cases
being SCV—266225. Trial for these consolidated cases number SCV-266225 shall commence on
November 4, 2022 at 8:30 a.m., Department 19.
- I-
ORDER AFTER HEARING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO VACATE TRIAL DATE; T0 ESTABLISH CUT-OFF
IInA'rlrs rm: nlsr'nvnnv Ann mn'rmns luswn nN NEW ‘rnm. nA'rm mn'rmN 'rn r'nNstnA'rlr. Amnns
Plaintifi' did not agree that discovery in the original action would remain open as to the
continued trialdate, and argues through objections to the proposed order that all discovexy in the
consolidated actions should not be subject to the November 4, 2022 uial date. Plaintifi‘ is correct,
and although the court believed that there was an agreement of the parties, such does not appear to
be the case. Accordingly, with regard to only SCV-270339, for purposes of discovery the
©WQO‘M#WN~
initial tn'al
date shall be November 4, 2022 for purposes of discovery.
Except as here set forth, the remaining issues and requests set forth in Defendants’ Motion
h
to Vacate Trial Date; to Establish Cut-Off Dates for Discovery and Motions Based on New Trial
Date: Motion to Consolidate Actions are DENIED.
HO Plaintifi‘s complain that they own a 6l-acre parcel ofreal property at 7585 Valley Ford Road
|(“Plaintifis‘ Property”) and that Defendant Two Rock Volunteer Fire Depanment (“TRVFD”),
owning an adjacent parcel of real property at 7599 Valley Ford Road (“Defendant’s Property"), has
improperly maintained and constructed improvements on its property in violation ofapplicable
zoning and building ordinances and a use permit (“the Permit"), which constitute a nuisance. They
contend that TRVFD obtained the Permit by an application (“the Application") for construction of a
garage and storage building (“the Garage") on Defendant’s Property, with various restrictions (“the
Project”). but TRVFD has used Defendant’s Property and the Garage in other ways, has violated
the restrictions and conditions ofthe Permit by,
NNNNNNNNNHu—t—u—a—Hv—tmu—I
among other things, causing a diversion ofwater
ll
onto Plaintith’ Property, installing a propane tank and heater, .They allege that an agent of
“Q&MAUJNHOOOONO\M&WN~
TRVFD approached Plaintiffs in November 20] 8 to request that Plaintiffs waive the ZO-foot
setback requirement and allow only a 5-foot setback for the proposed building. They also allege
that when they received notice of the Application, they were not given notice that the Application
included a parking lot but that the Application included a gravel parking lot and TRVFD has in fact
built a paved, elevated, parking lot. They seek inj unctive and declaratory relief stopping TRVFD’s
alleged violations, nuisances, and trespass.
After a hearing on September 23, 2020, this court granted Plaintifi‘s’ motion to consolidate
SCV-26673l (“the Writ Action") with this action.
l
/
-2 -
h
ORDER AFTER HEARING 0N DEFENDANTS’ MOTION T0 VACATE TRIAL DATE; T0 ESTABLISH CUT-OFF
Inn's won nmrnvwnv Ann mn'rmns Rum) nN maw 'rnm. nn‘m MOTInN 'rn rnnsmnrrrn u‘rmns
|
In the Writ Action, the same Plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of mandate against the
County of Sonoma and its Permit and Resource Management Department (collectively, “the
County”), directing the County to enforce
L!
its codes against TRVFD. The Writ Action complaint
alleges that the County “issued" the Permit in March 2019.
Plaintiffs sought a preliminaxy injunction enjoining Defendant TRVFD from 1) the
“placement and use" of an external
\OOOQQUI-thfl
I!
light on the storage building in violation ofthe use permit; 2)
conducting meeting, gatherings, and events in the storage building; 3) the unpermitted use of the
parking lot: 4) maintaining and operating a propane heater in the storage building; 5) maintaining
and operating a propane tank in the parking lots area; 6) storing a mobile generator in the parking
lot area; 7) maintaining the highly reflective. glaring roof on the storage building in violation of the
permit’s requirement of a red color; and 8) maintaining and operating a SOOO-gallon water tank and
pad for the residence on the property in violation of codes.
H After the hearing on July 28, 2021 the court granted the motion in part.
The County moved for summary judgment on the writ action. The court denied the motion
afier the November 2021 hearing.
This matter presently before the court is for Defendant County’s Motion to Vacate Trial
Date; to Establish Cut-Ofi Dates for Discovery and Motions Based on New Trial Date; Motion to
IL
Consolidate Actions in which it seeks to consolidate this action with other actions. The motion
NNNNNNNNNn—n—In—Hfl—tflu—fl
seeks consolidation ofthree
”\I@MAUJNHO\OOONO\UIAUJNHO
“new” cases which Plaintiffs have filed, SCV-270322, SCV-270568,
SCV-270339. The first, SCV-270322, is Frear Stephen Schmid, er al. v. Thompson Gas ("The
Thompson Case”); the second, SCV-270568. is Frear Stephen Schmid. et al. v.Air Exchange, Inc,
er a]. ("The AEI Case"), and the third, SCV-270339, isFrear Stephen Schmid et a1. v. Two Rock
Fire Department (“the TRFD Case”) (collectively, these are the ”New Cases”). Defendant TRVFD
joins in the motion. They contend that the New Cases involve closely related factual and legal
issues, and that Plaintiffs have filed them instead of more properly amending the complaint in this
action to include the new claims and parties.
Plaintiffs oppose the motion, arguing that the motion is technically defective because itdoes
ll
not properly set forth the required infom1ation regarding the parties and cases, and consolidation is
.3-
ORDER AFTER HEARING 0N DEFENDANTS’ MOTION T0 VACATE TRIAL DATE; T0 ESTABLISH CUT-OFF
Inn's Irma nlsr‘nvwnv Ann Mtvrmns Iusnn nN NEW 'rmu. nA'rm MO'nnN 'rn r‘nnsmmn‘lr. A(‘rmns
not warranted because the New Cases all involve issues of damages and other specific legal and
factual questions not present in this action. Plaintiffs acknowledge that the New Cases are related
to the events at issue in this action but point out that to the extent that this is true, the fundamental
validity ofthe claims actually rests, at least in part, on the outcome of this action so that
consolidating the actions will merely delay the outcome ofthis action and complicate the issues,
OOOQGM&UJN~
while allowing this action to proceed may ultimately settle the fundamental issues underlying the
new actions.
The moving parties have filed reply papers.
II
Under Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) §1048(a), a party may seek to consolidate separate
actions “involving a common question of law or fact...pending before the court...” The moving
party must demonstrate that the cases to be consolidated involve the same common issues of law 0r
fact and that consolidation will avoid “unnecessary costs and delays” to the court and parties. CCP
§1048(a): Jud Whitehead Heater Co. v. Obler (1952) 111 Cal.App.2d 861, 867. Other factors to
consider include whether granting consolidation would prej udice any parties involved, delay the
trial of any case involved, and whether consolidation would make the case(s) too complex and
confusing. The decision is within the “sound discretion” ofthe trial court. Fellner v.
Steinbaum (1955) 132 Cal.App.2d 509, 51 1.
According
NNNNNNNNNflI—Iu—IHHH—tuflo—fi
to California Rule of Court ("CRC”) 3.350, the lead case shall be the lowest-
"
numbered case “[u]nless otherwise provided
WNO‘MAWNHOOOONONMAWNHO
in the order....” When a court orders cases completely
consolidated, the pleadings are considered merged. a party appearing in any of the consolidated
actions is subject to courtjurisdiction in the entire merged action, and there is one set of findings
and one judgment. See Hamilton v.Asbestos Corp. Ltd. (2000) 22 Cal.4"‘ 1127, 1147-1 148.
Where the court consolidates actions only for trial,on the other hand. pleadings, verdicts, findings,
and judgments remain separate, and appearance in one action is not an appearance in any other
action so consolidated. Sanchez v. Sup.Ct. (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 1391, 1395-1399.
Plaintiffs are correct that the motion as a whole violates the clear, mandatory requirements
of CRC 3.350(a). As Plaintiffs point out, CRC 3.350(a) states, with emphasis added,
(1) A notice of motion to consolidate must:
-4 -
ORDER AFTER HEARING 0N DEFENDANTS’ MOTION T0 VACATE TRIAL DATE; T0 ESTABLISH CUT—OFF
nn'ws ma nlsrnvnnv Ann mnTmNS msnn nN Nitw Tum. Innis mn'rInN Tn rnnsmmrrir. Ar'rmns
(A) List all named parties in each case, the names of those who have appeared. and the
names oftheir respective attorneys of record;
(B) Contain the captions ofall the cases sought to be consolidated, with the lowest
numbered case shown first; and
(C) Be filed in each case sought to be consolidated.
\OOOflQM-FUJNH
Prior to the hearing on these motions, an answer was filed as to SCV-270339; counsel
Adams appeared. and stated that his client seeks consolidation. Plaintiffs are the same in allactions,
and as such, plaintiffs are aware ofthe issues and the nature of the proceedings. While unusual, the
court determines that all purposes of the requirements of the consolidation statute have been met as
to these actions now consolidated. There is not prejudice to any party. Counsel Frear did not state
any prejudice that would result from this consolidation. In any event, the coun determines that
given the similarity of issues. and the lack of prej udice. consolidation is reasonable and appropriate.
Plaintiffs are correct that the consolidated cases involve issues of damages and other
specific legal and factual questions not present in this action. This action isbased solely on two
b‘asic issues: whether the County properly approved the Application and Project, and whether the
Project as built violates the terms and conditions of the Application as approved. Action SCV-
270339 involves issues of damages regarding actions taken within the context of the project, and
arising since then. However, the fundamental validity ofthe claims in SCV-270339 rests on
NNNNNNNNNHHH—~—n—~H—n
determination 0f the originally consolidated cases. Plaintifl‘s are the same in all actions and the
OOVO\M#WN~°\0mQ@MAwN—‘O
Defendants in SCV—270339 are in part the same as those in this action and in part in privity with the
Defendants in this case. Inasmuch as the defendant in SCV-270339 seeks consolidation, there is n0
surprise, and the intent of the aforementioned rule of court is complied with. The court detemlines
that the similarity of issues between all of the consolidated actions will lead to an efficient
resolution ofthe issues.
The court notes that Plaintiffs may seek by way of motion in limine or otherwise for the
order as to presentation of claims, the order ofproof. or bifurcation if the trialcourt deems it
appropriate.
/
-5 -
ORDER AFTER HEARING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 1‘0 VACATE TRIAL DATE; T0 ESTABLISH CUT-OFF
Inn's Irnn nlsr‘nvnnv um M(meg luck" mu Nlaw 'rnul. nn'm Mn'rmN 1'0 r‘nnmunrrlr. Ar'rmNS
IT IS SO ORDERED:
Dated: July 29, 2022.
Hongra e G'ary Nadler
©00QGUI$UJNH
Judge of the Superior Court
wqaman—ocESSGzagzs
NNNNNNNtvn—
-6.
ORDER AFTER HEARING 0N DEFENDANTS’ MOTION T0 VACATE TRIAL DATE; T0 ESTABLISH CUT-OFF
Inn‘s Irma nlsrnvwnv um MOTInNR BASH} nN Nlaw Tum. nn‘m mnTInN Tn rnnsm .mA'rl-t Ar'rlnns
SCV-266225
PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL
I certify that I am an employee of the Superior Court of California, County of Sonoma,
and that my business address is 600 Administration Dr., Room 107-], Santa Rosa, California,
95403; that I am not a party to this case; that I am over the age of 18; that I am readily familiar
with this office's practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the
United States Postal Service; and that on the date shown below I placed a true copy of ORDER
AFTER HE4RING 0N DEFENDANTS’ MOTION T0 VACATE TRIAL DATE; T0
ESTABLISH CUT-OFF DATES FOR DISCOVERY AND MOTIONS BASED 0N NEW
TRIAL DATE; MOTION T0 CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS in an envelope, sealed and addressed
as shown below, for collection and mailing at Santa Rosa, California, first class, postage fully
prepaid, following ordinary business practices.
Date: July 29, 2022 Kwesi Williams
Acting Clerk of the Court
By: MW
Luce Gonzalez, Deputy Clerk
-ADDRESSEES-
FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID MICHAEL ALCOCK KING
7585 VALLEY FORD ROAD DEPUTY COUNTY COUNSEL
PETALUMA CA 94952 COUNTY OF SONOMA
575 ADMINISTRATION DRIVE ROOM 105A
SANTA ROSA CA 95403
ASTRID SCHMID
7585 VALLEY FORD ROAD WILLIAM L ADAMS
PETALUMA CA 94952 JOHNSTON THOMAS ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1400 N DUTTON AVE SUITE 21
SANTA ROSA CA 95401
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
Schmid v. Two Rock Volunteer Fire Department
2 Sonoma County Superior Court Consolidated Case No. SCV-266225
3 I, the undersigned, declare:
4 I am employed in the County of Sonoma, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to the within cause; my business address is 1400 N Dutton Ave., Suite 21,
5 Santa Rosa, California 95401.
6 On the date stated below, I caused to be served in the manner indicated the foregoing:
7
NOTICE OF FILING OF ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASE NO.
8 SCV-270339 INTO CASE NO. SCV-266225
[CRC 3.350 ]
9
10 on the parties involved addressed as follows:
11 Frear Stephen Schmid Plaintiff in Pro Per
7585 Valley Ford Road
12 Petaluma, CA 94952
frearschmid@aol.com
13
Astrid Schmid Plaintiff in Pro Per
14 7585 Valley Ford Road
Petaluma, CA 94952
15 frearschmid@aol.com
16 Michael A. King Counsel for Defendant County of Sonoma
Deputy County Counsel
17 County of Sonoma
575 Administration Drive, Room 105-A
18 Santa Rosa, CA 95403
Michael.King@sonoma-county.org
19
20 [X] BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE – Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6 and
California Rules of Court section 2.251, I affected electronic service of the documents
21 indicated above to the email address(es) listed above by submitting an electronic PDF version
of the document(s) to Microsoft Outlook, through the user interface at johnstonthomas.com.
22 My eService address is: jschaap@johnstonthomas.com
23 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is
true and correct. Executed on August 23, 2022, at Santa Rosa, California.
24
25
26 Jacqueline Schaap, Paralegal
27
2
NOTICE OF FILING OF ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
Preview
William L. Adams SBN 166027 1 JOHNSTON | THOMAS, Attorneys at Law 1400 N. Dutton Ave., Suite 21 2 Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Telephone: (707) 545-6542 3 Facsimile: (707) 545-1522 Email: wadams@johnstonthomas.com 4 Attorneys for Defendant 5 TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SONOMA 10 FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID AND Case No. SCV-266225 ASTRID SCHMID, and consolidated cases SCV-266731 and SCV- 11 270339 Plaintiffs, 12 v. NOTICE OF FILING OF ORDER 13 GRANTING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASE NO. SCV-270339 INTO CASE NO. 14 TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE SCV-266225 DEPARTMENT (erroneously sued as TWO [CRC 3.350 ] 15 ROCK FIRE DEPARTMENT), 16 Defendant. Trial Call: November 4, 2022 Time: 8:30 a.m. 17 Dept.: 19 18 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 19 Notice is hereby given that effective July 29, 2022, the Sonoma County Superior Court 20 ordered the consolidation of Case No. SCV-270339, Schmid v. Two Rock Volunteer Fire 21 Department; into Case No. SCV-266225, Schmid v. Two Rock Volunteer Fire Department, as set 22 forth the true and correct copy of the Court’s “Order After Hearing on Defendants’ Motion to 23 Vacate Trial Date; To Establish Cut-off Dates for Discovery and Motions Based on New Trial 24 Date; Motion to Consolidate Action” entered July 29, 2022, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”. 25 DATED: August 23, 2022 JOHNSTON | THOMAS, Attorneys at Law, PC 26 By: 27 William L. Adams, Counsel for Defendant TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT -1- NOTICE OF FILING OF ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE EXHIBIT A HON. GARY NADLER JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT Courtroom 19 3055 Cleveland Avenue Santa Rosa, CA 95403 (707) L. 521-6602 \OOONONUIAWNu—n SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA | 1 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SONOMA FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID AND Case No. SCV-266225 and ASTRID SCHMID, k: consolidated action SCV-266731 Plaintifi‘s, ORDER AFTER HEARING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION T0 VACATE vs. TRIAL DATE; TO ESTABLISH CUT-OFF DATES FOR DISCOVERY AND MOTIONS BASED ON NEW TRIAL DATE; MOTION TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE TO CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS DEPARTMENT, A California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation, Hearing Date: July 27, 2022 Defendant. Time: 3:00 p.m. Dept: 19 fl Trial Date: November 4, 2022 AND CONSOLIDATED ACTION NNNNNNNNNHr—IHHr—Iwr—Iflr—Ir—t The parties and counsel appeared WVQMAMNHCOWQQM#WNHO at the Court’s Law and Motion hearing on July 27, 2022. Plaintifl‘ Frear Stephen Schmid appeared. Defendant Two Rock Volunteer Fire Department appeared through counsel William L. Adams. Defendant County of Sonoma appeared through counsel Michael King. Defendant ThompsonGas, LLC appeared through counsel William L. Adams. No other panics appeared. The court grants the motion to consolidate with regard to SCV-270339, but otherwise denies the motion. As such, SCV-270339 shall be consolidated with the previously consolidated case numbers SCV-266225 and SCV-26673 l; with the lead case number for these consolidated cases being SCV—266225. Trial for these consolidated cases number SCV-266225 shall commence on November 4, 2022 at 8:30 a.m., Department 19. - I- ORDER AFTER HEARING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO VACATE TRIAL DATE; T0 ESTABLISH CUT-OFF IInA'rlrs rm: nlsr'nvnnv Ann mn'rmns luswn nN NEW ‘rnm. nA'rm mn'rmN 'rn r'nNstnA'rlr. Amnns Plaintifi' did not agree that discovery in the original action would remain open as to the continued trialdate, and argues through objections to the proposed order that all discovexy in the consolidated actions should not be subject to the November 4, 2022 uial date. Plaintifi‘ is correct, and although the court believed that there was an agreement of the parties, such does not appear to be the case. Accordingly, with regard to only SCV-270339, for purposes of discovery the ©WQO‘M#WN~ initial tn'al date shall be November 4, 2022 for purposes of discovery. Except as here set forth, the remaining issues and requests set forth in Defendants’ Motion h to Vacate Trial Date; to Establish Cut-Off Dates for Discovery and Motions Based on New Trial Date: Motion to Consolidate Actions are DENIED. HO Plaintifi‘s complain that they own a 6l-acre parcel ofreal property at 7585 Valley Ford Road |(“Plaintifis‘ Property”) and that Defendant Two Rock Volunteer Fire Depanment (“TRVFD”), owning an adjacent parcel of real property at 7599 Valley Ford Road (“Defendant’s Property"), has improperly maintained and constructed improvements on its property in violation ofapplicable zoning and building ordinances and a use permit (“the Permit"), which constitute a nuisance. They contend that TRVFD obtained the Permit by an application (“the Application") for construction of a garage and storage building (“the Garage") on Defendant’s Property, with various restrictions (“the Project”). but TRVFD has used Defendant’s Property and the Garage in other ways, has violated the restrictions and conditions ofthe Permit by, NNNNNNNNNHu—t—u—a—Hv—tmu—I among other things, causing a diversion ofwater ll onto Plaintith’ Property, installing a propane tank and heater, .They allege that an agent of “Q&MAUJNHOOOONO\M&WN~ TRVFD approached Plaintiffs in November 20] 8 to request that Plaintiffs waive the ZO-foot setback requirement and allow only a 5-foot setback for the proposed building. They also allege that when they received notice of the Application, they were not given notice that the Application included a parking lot but that the Application included a gravel parking lot and TRVFD has in fact built a paved, elevated, parking lot. They seek inj unctive and declaratory relief stopping TRVFD’s alleged violations, nuisances, and trespass. After a hearing on September 23, 2020, this court granted Plaintifi‘s’ motion to consolidate SCV-26673l (“the Writ Action") with this action. l / -2 - h ORDER AFTER HEARING 0N DEFENDANTS’ MOTION T0 VACATE TRIAL DATE; T0 ESTABLISH CUT-OFF Inn's won nmrnvwnv Ann mn'rmns Rum) nN maw 'rnm. nn‘m MOTInN 'rn rnnsmnrrrn u‘rmns | In the Writ Action, the same Plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of mandate against the County of Sonoma and its Permit and Resource Management Department (collectively, “the County”), directing the County to enforce L! its codes against TRVFD. The Writ Action complaint alleges that the County “issued" the Permit in March 2019. Plaintiffs sought a preliminaxy injunction enjoining Defendant TRVFD from 1) the “placement and use" of an external \OOOQQUI-thfl I! light on the storage building in violation ofthe use permit; 2) conducting meeting, gatherings, and events in the storage building; 3) the unpermitted use of the parking lot: 4) maintaining and operating a propane heater in the storage building; 5) maintaining and operating a propane tank in the parking lots area; 6) storing a mobile generator in the parking lot area; 7) maintaining the highly reflective. glaring roof on the storage building in violation of the permit’s requirement of a red color; and 8) maintaining and operating a SOOO-gallon water tank and pad for the residence on the property in violation of codes. H After the hearing on July 28, 2021 the court granted the motion in part. The County moved for summary judgment on the writ action. The court denied the motion afier the November 2021 hearing. This matter presently before the court is for Defendant County’s Motion to Vacate Trial Date; to Establish Cut-Ofi Dates for Discovery and Motions Based on New Trial Date; Motion to IL Consolidate Actions in which it seeks to consolidate this action with other actions. The motion NNNNNNNNNn—n—In—Hfl—tflu—fl seeks consolidation ofthree ”\I@MAUJNHO\OOONO\UIAUJNHO “new” cases which Plaintiffs have filed, SCV-270322, SCV-270568, SCV-270339. The first, SCV-270322, is Frear Stephen Schmid, er al. v. Thompson Gas ("The Thompson Case”); the second, SCV-270568. is Frear Stephen Schmid. et al. v.Air Exchange, Inc, er a]. ("The AEI Case"), and the third, SCV-270339, isFrear Stephen Schmid et a1. v. Two Rock Fire Department (“the TRFD Case”) (collectively, these are the ”New Cases”). Defendant TRVFD joins in the motion. They contend that the New Cases involve closely related factual and legal issues, and that Plaintiffs have filed them instead of more properly amending the complaint in this action to include the new claims and parties. Plaintiffs oppose the motion, arguing that the motion is technically defective because itdoes ll not properly set forth the required infom1ation regarding the parties and cases, and consolidation is .3- ORDER AFTER HEARING 0N DEFENDANTS’ MOTION T0 VACATE TRIAL DATE; T0 ESTABLISH CUT-OFF Inn's Irma nlsr‘nvwnv Ann Mtvrmns Iusnn nN NEW 'rmu. nA'rm MO'nnN 'rn r‘nnsmmn‘lr. A(‘rmns not warranted because the New Cases all involve issues of damages and other specific legal and factual questions not present in this action. Plaintiffs acknowledge that the New Cases are related to the events at issue in this action but point out that to the extent that this is true, the fundamental validity ofthe claims actually rests, at least in part, on the outcome of this action so that consolidating the actions will merely delay the outcome ofthis action and complicate the issues, OOOQGM&UJN~ while allowing this action to proceed may ultimately settle the fundamental issues underlying the new actions. The moving parties have filed reply papers. II Under Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) §1048(a), a party may seek to consolidate separate actions “involving a common question of law or fact...pending before the court...” The moving party must demonstrate that the cases to be consolidated involve the same common issues of law 0r fact and that consolidation will avoid “unnecessary costs and delays” to the court and parties. CCP §1048(a): Jud Whitehead Heater Co. v. Obler (1952) 111 Cal.App.2d 861, 867. Other factors to consider include whether granting consolidation would prej udice any parties involved, delay the trial of any case involved, and whether consolidation would make the case(s) too complex and confusing. The decision is within the “sound discretion” ofthe trial court. Fellner v. Steinbaum (1955) 132 Cal.App.2d 509, 51 1. According NNNNNNNNNflI—Iu—IHHH—tuflo—fi to California Rule of Court ("CRC”) 3.350, the lead case shall be the lowest- " numbered case “[u]nless otherwise provided WNO‘MAWNHOOOONONMAWNHO in the order....” When a court orders cases completely consolidated, the pleadings are considered merged. a party appearing in any of the consolidated actions is subject to courtjurisdiction in the entire merged action, and there is one set of findings and one judgment. See Hamilton v.Asbestos Corp. Ltd. (2000) 22 Cal.4"‘ 1127, 1147-1 148. Where the court consolidates actions only for trial,on the other hand. pleadings, verdicts, findings, and judgments remain separate, and appearance in one action is not an appearance in any other action so consolidated. Sanchez v. Sup.Ct. (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 1391, 1395-1399. Plaintiffs are correct that the motion as a whole violates the clear, mandatory requirements of CRC 3.350(a). As Plaintiffs point out, CRC 3.350(a) states, with emphasis added, (1) A notice of motion to consolidate must: -4 - ORDER AFTER HEARING 0N DEFENDANTS’ MOTION T0 VACATE TRIAL DATE; T0 ESTABLISH CUT—OFF nn'ws ma nlsrnvnnv Ann mnTmNS msnn nN Nitw Tum. Innis mn'rInN Tn rnnsmmrrir. Ar'rmns (A) List all named parties in each case, the names of those who have appeared. and the names oftheir respective attorneys of record; (B) Contain the captions ofall the cases sought to be consolidated, with the lowest numbered case shown first; and (C) Be filed in each case sought to be consolidated. \OOOflQM-FUJNH Prior to the hearing on these motions, an answer was filed as to SCV-270339; counsel Adams appeared. and stated that his client seeks consolidation. Plaintiffs are the same in allactions, and as such, plaintiffs are aware ofthe issues and the nature of the proceedings. While unusual, the court determines that all purposes of the requirements of the consolidation statute have been met as to these actions now consolidated. There is not prejudice to any party. Counsel Frear did not state any prejudice that would result from this consolidation. In any event, the coun determines that given the similarity of issues. and the lack of prej udice. consolidation is reasonable and appropriate. Plaintiffs are correct that the consolidated cases involve issues of damages and other specific legal and factual questions not present in this action. This action isbased solely on two b‘asic issues: whether the County properly approved the Application and Project, and whether the Project as built violates the terms and conditions of the Application as approved. Action SCV- 270339 involves issues of damages regarding actions taken within the context of the project, and arising since then. However, the fundamental validity ofthe claims in SCV-270339 rests on NNNNNNNNNHHH—~—n—~H—n determination 0f the originally consolidated cases. Plaintifl‘s are the same in all actions and the OOVO\M#WN~°\0mQ@MAwN—‘O Defendants in SCV—270339 are in part the same as those in this action and in part in privity with the Defendants in this case. Inasmuch as the defendant in SCV-270339 seeks consolidation, there is n0 surprise, and the intent of the aforementioned rule of court is complied with. The court detemlines that the similarity of issues between all of the consolidated actions will lead to an efficient resolution ofthe issues. The court notes that Plaintiffs may seek by way of motion in limine or otherwise for the order as to presentation of claims, the order ofproof. or bifurcation if the trialcourt deems it appropriate. / -5 - ORDER AFTER HEARING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 1‘0 VACATE TRIAL DATE; T0 ESTABLISH CUT-OFF Inn's Irnn nlsr‘nvnnv um M(meg luck" mu Nlaw 'rnul. nn'm Mn'rmN 1'0 r‘nnmunrrlr. Ar'rmNS IT IS SO ORDERED: Dated: July 29, 2022. Hongra e G'ary Nadler ©00QGUI$UJNH Judge of the Superior Court wqaman—ocESSGzagzs NNNNNNNtvn— -6. ORDER AFTER HEARING 0N DEFENDANTS’ MOTION T0 VACATE TRIAL DATE; T0 ESTABLISH CUT-OFF Inn‘s Irma nlsrnvwnv um MOTInNR BASH} nN Nlaw Tum. nn‘m mnTInN Tn rnnsm .mA'rl-t Ar'rlnns SCV-266225 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL I certify that I am an employee of the Superior Court of California, County of Sonoma, and that my business address is 600 Administration Dr., Room 107-], Santa Rosa, California, 95403; that I am not a party to this case; that I am over the age of 18; that I am readily familiar with this office's practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service; and that on the date shown below I placed a true copy of ORDER AFTER HE4RING 0N DEFENDANTS’ MOTION T0 VACATE TRIAL DATE; T0 ESTABLISH CUT-OFF DATES FOR DISCOVERY AND MOTIONS BASED 0N NEW TRIAL DATE; MOTION T0 CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS in an envelope, sealed and addressed as shown below, for collection and mailing at Santa Rosa, California, first class, postage fully prepaid, following ordinary business practices. Date: July 29, 2022 Kwesi Williams Acting Clerk of the Court By: MW Luce Gonzalez, Deputy Clerk -ADDRESSEES- FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID MICHAEL ALCOCK KING 7585 VALLEY FORD ROAD DEPUTY COUNTY COUNSEL PETALUMA CA 94952 COUNTY OF SONOMA 575 ADMINISTRATION DRIVE ROOM 105A SANTA ROSA CA 95403 ASTRID SCHMID 7585 VALLEY FORD ROAD WILLIAM L ADAMS PETALUMA CA 94952 JOHNSTON THOMAS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1400 N DUTTON AVE SUITE 21 SANTA ROSA CA 95401 1 PROOF OF SERVICE Schmid v. Two Rock Volunteer Fire Department 2 Sonoma County Superior Court Consolidated Case No. SCV-266225 3 I, the undersigned, declare: 4 I am employed in the County of Sonoma, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within cause; my business address is 1400 N Dutton Ave., Suite 21, 5 Santa Rosa, California 95401. 6 On the date stated below, I caused to be served in the manner indicated the foregoing: 7 NOTICE OF FILING OF ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASE NO. 8 SCV-270339 INTO CASE NO. SCV-266225 [CRC 3.350 ] 9 10 on the parties involved addressed as follows: 11 Frear Stephen Schmid Plaintiff in Pro Per 7585 Valley Ford Road 12 Petaluma, CA 94952 frearschmid@aol.com 13 Astrid Schmid Plaintiff in Pro Per 14 7585 Valley Ford Road Petaluma, CA 94952 15 frearschmid@aol.com 16 Michael A. King Counsel for Defendant County of Sonoma Deputy County Counsel 17 County of Sonoma 575 Administration Drive, Room 105-A 18 Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Michael.King@sonoma-county.org 19 20 [X] BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE – Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6 and California Rules of Court section 2.251, I affected electronic service of the documents 21 indicated above to the email address(es) listed above by submitting an electronic PDF version of the document(s) to Microsoft Outlook, through the user interface at johnstonthomas.com. 22 My eService address is: jschaap@johnstonthomas.com 23 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on August 23, 2022, at Santa Rosa, California. 24 25 26 Jacqueline Schaap, Paralegal 27 2 NOTICE OF FILING OF ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE