Adventure Resort Marketing, LLC, (ARM) et al vs. B & W Resorts, Inc., dba Harmony Ridge Resort et al

To prevail, the movant must establish (1) the cases are pending before the same court, (2) the cases share a common question of law or fact, and (3) the benefits of consolidation outweigh the burdens. See Code Civ. Proc., § 1048(a). In making the decision to grant or deny a consolidation, “the determination is within the discretion of the trial court since it is impossible to foresee all the possibilities of prejudice which might arise from such consolidation.” General Motors Corp. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1966) 65 Cal.2d 88, 92.

Discussion

It is undisputed both matters are pending in the Nevada County Superior Court. However, the earlier filed case is assigned to this Department A, whereas CU0002221 is assigned to Judge Tice-Raskin in Department 6 of the Nevada City Branch of the Court. The Court notes the present matter, CU0002183, was originally assigned to Judge Tice-Raskin in Department 6 until Plaintiffs in that matter filed a preemptory challenge on June 24, 2026 asserting Plaintiffs could not have a fair and impartial hearing in front of Judge Tice-Raskin, after which the case was reassigned to Department A. Plaintiffs’ counsel in matter CU0002221 filed no such preemptory challenge. However, as both matters are pending in the same superior court/county, the Court will consider whether the matters share common questions of law or fact and any benefits or burdens associated with consolidation.

Plaintiffs argue the motion to consolidate arises from a common origin of the claim for defamation—the allegations Defendant Bill Sinor, Sr. accused Plaintiff Sean Graham of committing fraud and embezzling funds as part of a conspiracy with Bill Sinor Jr., and such statements were intended to tarnish Plaintiffs’ reputations. However, each case has distinct causes of action. Case No. CU0002221 also alleges causes of action for: (1) Harassment – Hostile Work Environment; (2) FEHA retaliation; (3) Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Retaliation, and Harassment; (4) Breach of Contract – Written; (5) Breach of Contract – Verbal; (6) Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (7) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; and (8) Defamation. Case No. CU0002183, on the other hand, solely alleges causes of action for: (1) Breach of Contract and (2) Defamation.

In support of the motion, Plaintiffs essentially contend, because both cases involve a cause of action for defamation, they should be consolidated. The CU0002183 Complaint alleges, “false and defamatory statements included express and implied accusations that Plaintiff had engaged in or been involved in dishonest conduct such as theft of materials belonging to the Company.” CU0002183 Complaint, ¶ 77. The CU0002221 Complaint alleges Plaintiff Sean Graham “commit[ed] fraud and embezzl[ed] funds as part of a conspiracy with Bill Sinor, Jr., and Jon Landon, and expressly threatened to tarnish [h]is reputation in the process,” as well as accusations of “several illegal acts.” CU0002221 Complaint, Att.

1.

Alleging the same cause of action does not make the issues identical, even if some parties overlap. Additionally, the plaintiffs in both cases have alleged factually different and distinct causes of action beyond that of defamation. Consolidating such distinct factual inquiries and legal theories into a single case would tend to greatly increase the complexity of the case risking confusion of the trier of fact, all of which could result in substantial prejudice to all parties. The evidence at trial could easily become quite confusing to a juror as the law and legal theories will be different and involve only some of the same parties and/or facts.

For these reasons, the Court concludes the commonality of some alleged facts yet lack of commonality of legal issues is fatal to Plaintiffs’ position consolidation would, overall, be beneficial to either the Court or the parties.

Accordingly, the Court finds any benefit stemming from consolidation would be slight, and any such benefit is far outweighed by the burdens of potential injustice and/or prejudice to some or all of the parties. The Court further finds judicial economy would not be served by consolidation.

Accordingly, the motion to consolidate is DENIED.

8. CU0002513 TRUCKEE CROSSROADS S.C., LP, a Delaware limited partnership vs. SIERRA CREST CORPORATION, a Nevada corporation et al

Appearances required by Defendants, Sierra Crest Corporation dba Blue Zone Sports and Ski James Broman, to show cause as to why Defendants' Answer or, at a minimum, the "Counterclaim" portion of Defendants' Answer should not be STRICKEN for failure to adhere to CCP sections 428.40 and 428.80. More specifically, although using the term "counterclaim" for a cross-complaint does not affect its validity (see, CCP section 428.80), any cross-complaint is to be filed as a separate document and shall not be contained within an answer. See, CCP 428.40. (Defendants should also take note of CCP section 428.50.)

9. CU0002527 Jerome Nocerino vs. Airbnb, Inc. et al

No appearance required. In light of the filed proofs of service, the OSC re dismissal is hereby vacated.

10. CU0002546 Joann Pennington et al vs. Tahoe Forest Hospital District dba Tahoe Forest Hospital D/P SNF et al

No appearance required. On the Court’s own motion and in light of the declaration of counsel for Plaintiffs, the OSC re Dismissal is continued to August 21, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department A.

11. CU0002549 PATRICK J. ROMANO vs. AUSTIN SHI-PING WANG

No appearance required. In light of the filed proofs of service, the OSC re dismissal is hereby vacated. However, the proof of service on file fails to indicate notice of the case management

16