Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki

Department 58

Hearing Date: November 14, 2023

Case Name: Luis Alberto Martinez v. Orkid Plaza, LLC

Fatima Cervantes v. Orkid Plaza, LLC

Jorge Arreola v. Orkid Plaza, LLC

Eloina Mendez Chavez v. Orkid Plaza, LLC

Case No.: 23STCV12943

23STCV12969

23STCV12999

23STCV15505

Matter: Notice of Related Case

Moving Party: Defendant Orkid Plaza, LLC

Responding Party: None

Tentative Ruling: The four cases are ordered not related.

All the cases arise from Plaintiffs’ respective landlord-tenant relationships with Orkid Plaza, LLC.

Defendant Orkid Plaza, LLC filed a notice of related case, indicating that case number 23STCV12943 (Luis Alberto Martinez v. Orkid Plaza, LLC) in Department 58 is related to case number 23STCV12969 (Fatima Cervantes v. Orkid Plaza, LLC) in Department 24, case number 23STCV12999 (Jorge Arreola v. Orkid Plaza, LLC) in Department 16, and case number 23STCV15505 (Eloina Mendez Chavez v. Orkid Plaza, LLC) in Department 54.

The four cases are not related. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a).)

DISCUSSION

Cases at Issue:

Case Name	Case Number	Filing Date	Dept.
1. Luis Alberto Martinez v. Orkid Plaza, LLC	23STCV12943	6/7/23	58
2. Fatima Cervantes v. Orkid Plaza, LLC	23STCV12969	6/7/23	24
3. Jorge Arreola v. Orkid Plaza, LLC	23STCV12999	6/7/23	16
4. Eloina Mendez Chavez v. Orkid Plaza, LLC	23STCV15505	7/3/23	54

Procedural Requirements

If all the related cases have been filed in one superior court, as it is here, “[w]here the cases listed in the notice are unlimited civil cases, the judge who has the earliest filed case must determine whether the cases should be ordered related and assigned to his or her department.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.300(h)(1)(A).)

As 23STCV12943 is the earliest case having been filed at 9:29 AM, Department 58 shall determine whether the cases are related.

The notice of related case must be filed in all pending cases listed in the notice and must be served on all parties in those cases. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.300(d).) Defendant Orkid Plaza, LLC filed a notice of related case in all the cases.

A party may respond to a notice of related cases within five days of service on the party. (Cal. Rule of Court 3.300(g).) No objections were filed to the notice of related cases.

The notices of related cases are procedurally proper.

Substantive Requirements

The inquiry on a notice of related cases is whether the cases at issue (1) involve the same parties and are based on the same or similar claims; (2) arise from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact; (3) involve claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the same property; or (4) are likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a)(1)-(4).)

The cases arise from the same nucleus of facts. Here, the Complaints contain overlapping claims that are based on the same nucleus of facts –the physical conditions of the building, landlord Defendant’s alleged failure to properly maintain the habitability of the building and comply with the law and a fire that occurred in the building in June 2022.

In 23STCV12943, Plaintiff Martinez alleges numerous statutory habitability violations based on his tenancy with Defendant Orkid Plaza, LLC. Additionally, he alleges claims for nuisance, emotional distress, negligence, and violations of Health and Safety Code section 13007. These claims are based on allegations of a unsanitary/unsafe living conditions in his unit and in common areas. Further, the Complaint alleges that there was major fire in the building on June 12, 2022 as result of Defendant’s negligence; the fire destroyed many of Plaintiff’s belongings.

In 23STCV12969, Plaintiff Cervantes does not allege any statutory habitability violations against Defendant Orkid Plaza, LLC arising from her tenancy. However, like Plaintiff Martinez, she alleges claims for emotional distress, negligence, and violations of Health and Safety Code section 13007 arising from unsanitary/unsafe living conditions. She also alleges emotional and property damages from the fire that occurred on June 12, 2022.

In 23STCV12999, Plaintiff Arreola alleges the same statutory habitability violations as Plaintiff Martinez based on his tenancy with Defendant Orkid Plaza, LLC. Additionally, he alleges claims for nuisance, emotional distress, negligence, and violations of Health and Safety Code section 13007. These claims are based on allegations of unsanitary/unsafe living conditions in his unit and in common areas. Further, the Complaint alleges that there was major fire in the building on June 12, 2022 that occurred as result of Defendant’s negligence; the fire destroyed many of Plaintiff’s belongings and caused him emotional distress.

In 23STCV15505, Plaintiffs Eloina Mendez Chavez and Adan Ivan Chavez do not allege any statutory habitability violations against Defendant Orkid Plaza, LLC arising from their tenancy. Represented by different attorneys than the other cases, Plaintiffs allege a breach of contract, breach of warranty of habitability and wrongful eviction. These claims arise from allegations that Defendant Orkid maintained the premises in unsanitary/unsafe condition based on a rodent infestation, lack of electricity, and lack of heating (among other issues). They also allege property damage and constructive eviction as result of the fire that occurred on June 12, 2022.

The cases involve overlapping parties – Defendant Orkid Plaza, LLC– and similar habitability related claims based on similar conditions in the building, as well as the same singular catastrophic event – the June 2022 fire to the building. However, each case involves a different tenant and different units. The defects in each unit are separate from each other, may have different causes, and may have occurred over different periods of time. Further, the evidentiary showing for each party to demonstrate the cause of their injury and their damages will be separate and distinct. Therefore, the Court finds the cases are not related under California Rule of Court 3.300, subd. (a).

Defendant Orkid Plaza, LLC to give notice in each of the cases listed above.