In Mastick v. TD Ameritrade, Inc. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1258 the Court of Appeal found the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying a petition to compel pursuant to section 1281.2, subdivision (c) because plaintiff's claims against each defendant "are based on a single injury arising from advice given at a single meeting concerning a single transaction. As the federal district court aptly observed when it approved a defendant's joinder, 'If the actions proceed separately, there is a risk that the proceedings may come to inconsistent rulings--one proceeding could hold that Plaintiff was careless in her actions, and the other proceeding could hold that there was misconduct but that the parties in the other action were more culpable. This would risk duplicative proceedings, which would be inefficient for the courts, costly for the parties, and, to the extent they could reach inconsistent results, contrary to the interests of justice.'" (Mastick, at p. 1265.)