Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 24PSCV02496, Date: 2025-06-09 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling.

Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. O at 909-802-1126 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Submission on the tentative does not bind the court to adopt the tentative ruling at the hearing should the opposing party appear and convince the court of further modification during oral argument.

The Tentative Ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such filing will be considered by the Court in the absence of permission first obtained following ex-parte application therefore.

Case Number: 24PSCV02496    Hearing Date: June 9, 2025    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

(1)   DEFENDANTS, GREYSTAR CALIFORNIA, INC. (Erroneously sued as WORLDWIDE LLC., and GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC.) AND MONICA MARTINEZ’S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT is CONTINUED.

(2)   DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT is CONTINUED.

The hearings are continued to Tuesday, June 24, 2025 at 10 AM for Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s failure to meet and confer (in good faith). The court orders Plaintiffs’ Counsel to file a declaration that sets forth all the authority and arguments discussed as to each COA at least five court days before the continued hearing date. Should the meet and confer effort resolve some or all legal issues, the court requests that the demurrer x MTS be taken off calendar at least five court days before the hearing and encourages the parties to stipulate to file an amended complaint.

That aside, the court is inclined to reclassify this case as a limited civil case as the damages will not exceed $35,000.01.

Background

This is a habitability case. Plaintiffs SAJJAD SAYYAR ROUDSARI; ARMAGHAN SHALBAFTABAR allege the following against Defendants SIENNA RESIDENCES; CSCDA COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY; GREYSTAR WORLDWIDE, LLC; GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC; MONICA MARTINEZ: On August 10, 2022, Plaintiffs moved into their unit but noticed that the unit was infested with insects. Plaintiffs stayed at a hotel that night and moved into another unit the next day; on August 2, 2022, Plaintiffs had numerous bed bug bites across their bodies. On August 20, 2022, Plaintiffs moved out of the apartment. “As a result of the abovementioned unhealthy, uninhabitable, and unsanitary conditions, Plaintiffs incurred various expenses, including medical expenses, loss of income and loss of earnings, expenses associated with having to lease the Apartment Unit, replacing furniture, bedding, clothing, and other personal belongings that were exposed to the bed bugs, and the other unhealthy, unsanitary, and unhabitable conditions.” (Complaint ¶31.)

On August 2, 2024, Plaintiffs filed suit asserting the following causes of action (COAs):

1.     Battery

2.     Negligence

3.     Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

4.     Statutory Breach of Warranty of Habitability (Civil Code §§1941 and 1941.1)

5.     Tortious Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability

6.     Violation of Business & Professions Code §17200 et seq.

7.     Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment

8.     Violation of Civil Code §1942.3

9.     Violation of Civil Code §1942.4

10.  Negligent Violation of Statutory Duty to Maintain Habitable Conditions

11.  Breach of Contract

12.  Private Nuisance

13.  Public Nuisance

On May 12, 2025, Defendants filed the instant demurrer and motion to strike (MTS).

On May 27, 2025, Plaintiffs filed their opposition.

On June 2, 2025, Defendants filed their reply.

Discussion

The court cannot reach the merits as it appears Plaintiffs’ Counsel failed to meet and confer. According to Counsel Gray’s declaration and attached exhibits, Defense Counsel attempted a few times to contact Plaintiffs’ Counsel Janfaza, but no response or call back was given. Statutorily, parties are to meet and confer and to do so in good faith.

Thus, the court continues the hearing for the parties to do so.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the hearings are continued.