Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 23STCV12998, Date: 2023-11-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV12998    Hearing Date: December 18, 2023    Dept: 76

Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1), the Court does not desire oral argument on the motion addressed herein.  Counsel must contact the staff in Department 76 to inform the Court whether they wish to submit on the tentative, or to argue the matter.  As required by Rule 3.1308(a), any party seeking oral argument must notify ALL OTHER PARTIES and the staff of Department 76 of their intent to appear and argue.

Notice to Department 76 may be sent by email to smcdept76@lacourt.org or telephonically at 213-830-0776.

Per Rule of Court 3.1308, if notice of intention to appear is not given, the Court may adopt the tentative ruling as the final ruling.

            Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have failed to remediate uninhabitable conditions as the property leased by Plaintiff.

            Defendants SBDTLA 1 LLC, SBDTLA 2, LLC, SBDTLA 3 LLC, SBDTLA 4 LLC, and Greystar California, Inc. move to consolidate Case Nos. 23STCV12998, 23STCV13522, 23STCV13053, 23STCV13078, 23STCV13577 and 23STCV13597.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Defendants SBDTLA 1 LLC, SBDTLA 2, LLC, SBDTLA 3 LLC, SBDTLA 4 LLC, and Greystar California, Inc.’s motion to consolidate Case Nos. 23STCV12998, 23STCV13522, 23STCV13053, 23STCV13078, 23STCV13577 and 23STCV13597 for all purposes is GRANTED. The lead case shall be 23STCV12998.

ANALYSIS

Discussion

Defendants SBDTLA 1 LLC, SBDTLA 2, LLC, SBDTLA 3 LLC, SBDTLA 4 LLC, and Greystar California, Inc. move to consolidate the following cases:

1.         Johnny Ramos and Jamar Bradford v. 600 TOWER, LLC et al. (Case No. 23STCV12998):

Plaintiffs initiated case number 23STCV12998 on June 07, 2023, and are represented by attorney Jacob O. Partiyeli, of the Law Office of Jacob O. Partiyeli. 

Defendant FPI MANAGEMENT, INC. appeared in this matter on August 16, 2023, and is represented by attorneys George A. Guthrie and Melissa M. Eaton, of Wilke Fleury LLP. 

Defendant 600 TOWER, LLC appeared in this matter on September 6, 2023, and is represented by attorneys Joshua Bordin-Wosk and Bryan Aghakhani, of Bordin Semmer LLP. 

Defendants BARRY SHY, ERIC SHY, and ROMMY SHY were served with the Summons and Complaint in this action on September 6, 2023, but have not appeared.

Defendant 600 S SPRING STREET OWNER, LLC appeared on September 29, 2023, and is represented by Mark R. Hartney and Gina Ahmar, of Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP. 

Defendants SBDTLA 1 LLC, SBDTLA 2 LLC, SBDTLA 3 LLC, SBDTLA 4 LLC and GREYSTAR CALIFORNIA, INC. appeared in this matter on August 28, 2023, and are represented by the above captioned counsel.

 Defendant LEA KIM is represented by the above captioned counsel, but she has not been served, and thus has not appeared in this matter. 

2.         Richard Doran v. 600 TOWER, LLC et al. (Case No. 23STCV13522): 

Plaintiff initiated case number 23STCV13522 on June 13, 2023, and is represented by attorney Jacob O. Partiyeli, of the Law Office of Jacob O. Partiyeli. Plaintiff alleges an additional cause of action, intentional influence to vacate, which is unique to this and the Soto actions.

Defendant FPI MANAGEMENT, INC. appeared in this matter on August 16, 2023, and is represented by attorneys George A. Guthrie and Melissa M. Eaton, of Wilke Fleury LLP.  

Defendant 600 TOWER, LLC has not been served and thus has not appeared. 

Defendants BARRY SHY, ERIC SHY, and ROMMY SHY were served with the Summons and Complaint in this action on September 6, 2023, but have not appeared. 

Defendant 600 S SPRING STREET OWNER, LLC appeared on September 29, 2023, and is represented by Mark R. Hartney and Gina Ahmar, of Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP.

Defendants SBDTLA 1 LLC, SBDTLA 2 LLC, SBDTLA 3 LLC, SBDTLA 4 LLC and GREYSTAR CALIFORNIA, INC. appeared in this matter on August 28, 2023, and are represented by the above captioned counsel.  

Defendant LEA KIM is represented by the above captioned counsel, but she has not been served, and thus has not appeared in this matter.

3.         Gabriela Santa Maria v. 600 TOWER, LLC et al. (Case No. 23STCV13053):

Plaintiff initiated case number 23STCV13053 on June 8, 2023, and is represented by attorney Jacob O. Partiyeli, of the Law Office of Jacob O. Partiyeli.  Plaintiff alleges a cause of action for negligence per se which is not asserted in other causes of action.

Defendant FPI MANAGEMENT, INC. appeared in this matter on August 16, 2023, and is represented by attorneys George A. Guthrie and Melissa M. Eaton, of Wilke Fleury LLP. 

Defendant 600 TOWER, LLC has not been served and thus has not appeared. 

Defendants BARRY SHY, ERIC SHY, and ROMMY SHY were served with the Summons and Complaint in this action on September 6, 2023, but have not appeared.

Defendant 600 S SPRING STREET OWNER, LLC has not been served, and thus has not appeared. 

Defendants SBDTLA 1 LLC, SBDTLA 2 LLC, SBDTLA 3 LLC, SBDTLA 4 LLC and GREYSTAR CALIFORNIA, INC. appeared in this matter on August 28, 2023, and are represented by the above captioned counsel. 

Defendant LEA KIM is represented by the above captioned counsel, but she has not been served, and thus has not appeared in this matter.

4.         Luisa Soto v. 600 TOWER, LLC et al. (Case No. 23STCV13078):

Plaintiff initiated case number 23STCV13078 on June 8, 2023, and is represented by attorney Jacob O. Partiyeli, of the Law Office of Jacob O. Partiyeli.  Plaintiff alleges an additional cause of action, intentional influence to vacate, which is unique to this and the Doran actions.

Defendant FPI MANAGEMENT, INC. appeared in this matter on August 16, 2023, and is represented by attorneys George A. Guthrie and Melissa M. Eaton, of Wilke Fleury LLP. 

Defendant 600 TOWER, LLC has not been served and thus has not appeared. 

Defendants BARRY SHY, ERIC SHY and ROMMY SHY were served with the Summons and Complaint in this action on September 6, 2023, but have not appeared. 

Defendant 600 S SPRING STREET OWNER, LLC appeared on September 29, 2023, and is represented by Mark R. Hartney and Gina Ahmar, of Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP. 

Defendants SBDTLA 1 LLC, SBDTLA 2 LLC, SBDTLA 3 LLC, SBDTLA 4 LLC and GREYSTAR CALIFORNIA, INC. appeared in this matter on August 28, 2023, and are represented by the above captioned counsel. 

Defendant LEA KIM is represented by the above captioned counsel, but she has not been served, and thus has not appeared in this matter.

5.         Thea Samper v. 600 TOWER, LLC et al. (Case No. 23STCV13577):

Plaintiff initiated case number 23STCV13577 on June 13, 2023, and is represented by attorney Jacob O. Partiyeli, of the Law Office of Jacob O. Partiyeli.

Defendant FPI MANAGEMENT, INC. appeared in this matter on August 16, 2023, and is represented by attorneys George A. Guthrie and Melissa M. Eaton, of Wilke Fleury LLP. 

Defendant 600 TOWER, LLC has not been served and thus has not appeared. 

Defendants BARRY SHY, ERIC SHY and ROMMY SHY were served with the Summons and Complaint in this action on September 6, 2023, but have not appeared.

Defendant 600 S SPRING STREET OWNER, LLC appeared on September 29, 2023, and is represented by Mark R. Hartney and Gina Ahmar, of Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP.

Defendants SBDTLA 1 LLC, SBDTLA 2 LLC, SBDTLA 3 LLC, SBDTLA 4 LLC and GREYSTAR CALIFORNIA, INC. appeared in this matter on August 28, 2023, and are represented by the above captioned counsel. 

Defendant LEA KIM is represented by the above captioned counsel, but she has not been served, and thus has not appeared in this matter.

6.         Romel Talukder v. 600 TOWER, LLC et al. (Case No. 23STCV13597):

Plaintiff initiated case number 23STCV13597 on June 13, 2023, and is represented by attorney Jacob O. Partiyeli, of the Law Office of Jacob O. Partiyeli.

Defendant FPI MANAGEMENT, INC. appeared in this matter on August 16, 2023 and is represented by attorneys George A. Guthrie and Melissa M. Eaton, of Wilke Fleury LLP. 

Defendant 600 TOWER, LLC has not been served and thus has not appeared. 

Defendants BARRY SHY, ERIC SHY and ROMMY SHY were served with the Summons and Complaint in this action on September 6, 2023, but have not appeared. 

Defendant 600 S SPRING STREET OWNER, LLC has not been served, and thus has not appeared. 

Defendants SBDTLA 1 LLC, SBDTLA 2 LLC, SBDTLA 3 LLC, SBDTLA 4 LLC and GREYSTAR CALIFORNIA, INC. appeared in this matter on August 28, 2023,  and are represented by the above captioned counsel. 

Defendant LEA KIM is represented by the above captioned counsel, but she has not been served, and thus has not appeared in this matter.

            Defendants argue that the actions name identical Defendants, represented by the same counsel in each matter, and the costs and effort related to litigation, including discovery, court appearances and mediation will be unnecessarily duplicated if the cases are not consolidated.

Regarding consolidation, Civ. Proc. Code, § 1048(a) provides:

(a) When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.

(Civ. Proc. Code, § 1048(a).)

            “Whether separate actions shall be consolidated for trial is a matter within the discretion of the trial court and its decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion. (Citation omitted.) . . . ‘A consolidation of actions does not affect the rights of the parties. The purpose of consolidation is merely to promote trial convenience and economy by avoiding duplication of procedure, particularly in the proof of issues common to both actions.’ (Citation omitted.)” (Estate of Baker (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 471, 485 [bold emphasis added].)

            Here, all related actions pertain to the same subject property, owned and managed by the same Defendants. While the time periods may not be the same, presentation of the entire time frame will not confuse the jury and, in fact, might work against moving Defendants.

            Plaintiffs do not oppose consolidation for purposes of case management conference, mediations, court hearings or otherwise, but do oppose consolidation for purposes of trial. Plaintiffs argue that all of the tenancies are for different periods and some have moved out. Plaintiffs argue that instead of a 7-day trial for each case, this would be a 40-50 day long cause trial.

However, 6 cases of 7-day trials would total 42 days, which is at the lower end of Plaintiff’s asserted estimate. [1]  Separate trials would require substantial presentation of duplicative evidence and repeatedly calling the same witnesses—a waste of the parties’ time and judicial resources and an avoidable inconvenience for the witnesses.  Not to mention the fact that calling seven separate panels of jurors would be a substantial burden on the public that would not be justified in the absence of a need to “silo” the evidence to protect parties from crossover prejudice.  Also, there would be a risk of inconsistent findings of liability if individual claims were separately litigated.

As for differing dates of tenancy and different causation of damages, this can be readily managed by the use of an organized  verdict form and management of the order in which evidence is presented.  For example, the Court might simply order that evidence of Defendants’ management of the property and the alleged uninhabitable conditions be presented first, followed by the case-specific/Plaintiff-specific evidence of liability and damages.

The Court finds that consolidation of these related cases will promote trial convenience and economy. As such, the motion to consolidate for all purposes is GRANTED. The lead case shall be 23STCV12998.