Judge: David J. Cowan, Case: 20STCV42319, Date: 2022-08-18 Tentative Ruling

Please notify Dept. 1’s courtroom staff by email (SMCDept1@lacourt.org) or by telephone (213-633-0601) no later than 8:30 a.m. the day of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion.  If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify the other side that you will not appear at the hearing.  If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motion.  Please keep in mind that appearing at the hearing and simply repeating the arguments set forth in the papers is not a good use of the court’s time or the parties’ time.

 

Case Number: 20STCV42319    Hearing Date: August 18, 2022    Dept: 1

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Su Hui Hyon v. Citywide Management and Consulting, Inc., et al. (20STCV42319); 730 Kingsley, LLC v. Su H. Hyon (20STCV42326)

On November 11, 2020, Su Hui Hyon filed a Notice of Related Case indicating civil unlawful detainer case 20STUD03584 is related to civil cases 20STCV42319 and 20STCV42326. On December 18, 2020 and March 11, 2021, Judge Stuart M. Rice declined to relate case 20STCV42319 to cases 20STUD03584 or 20STCV42326. On July 22, 2022, Hyon filed, in Department 1, a Motion to Relate cases 20STCV42319 and 20STCV42326.

Cases are related when they (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. (CRC 3.300(a).)

The Supervising Judge of the Civil Division (sitting in Department 1) is authorized to hear a Motion to Relate Cases pertaining to cases “pending in the Central District or . . . pending in two or more different districts” whenever “the judge designated under [CRC] 3.300(h)(1)(A)(B)(C) to make the decision, does not order related any of the cases set forth in the Notice of Related Cases.” (Local Rule 3.3(f)(3); CRC 3.300(h)(1)(D).) Here, Hyon filed a Notice of Related Case and Judge Rice declined to relate the cases, which are both pending in the Central District, Stanley Mosk courthouse. (Local Rule 2.2(b).) Thus, Department 1 is authorized to consider the Motion to Relate Cases filed by Hyon. Moreover, the Motion to Relate is unopposed.

In order of filing, the cases sought to be related are: 

·       Su Hui Hyon v. Citywide Management and Consulting, Inc., et al. (20STCV42319) –initiated on November 4, 2020 when Su Hui Hyon filed a Complaint against Citywide Management and Consulting, Inc. (“Citywide”), Paz-Sandra, LLC, 730 Kingsley, LLC, 757 Kingsley, LLC, Seung Rock Hong, Richard Kim, Gregory Scott Brody, and Does 1-20 stating causes of action for sex discrimination, age discrimination, retaliation, failure to prevent harassment, discrimination, or retaliation, wrongful termination (two counts), failure to pay overtime wages, minimum wages, and wages due upon discharge, failure to provide accurate wage statements and employment records, unlawful business practices, and housing discrimination.

The Complaint alleges Citywide hired Hyon in April 2012 "as a Resident Manager of four apartment complexes" located at 720 S. Kingsley Drive, 730 S. Kingsley Drive, 747 S. Kingsley Drive, and 757 S. Kingsley Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90005. Hyon alleges her employment agreement provided "monthly salary of $1,950.00" and housing "in Unit # 102 of the 730 S. Kingsley Drive complex for the rate of $0.00 per mont with a "post-employment . . . rate of $46.50 per day." During her employment, Hyon was required to "walk the premises of the four complexes several times per day, including during the night" to see whether squatters had occupied any vacant units. Hyon alleges this role "dramatically increased risk to her safety" and alleges she "was the victim of several attacks," particularly in 2020, leading her to repeatedly complaint about her security role.

In early 2020, Hyon allegedly informed Hong and Kim (the owners of Citywide) and Brody (the owner of the apartment complexes) "of her intention to retire," and Brody offered to "personally buy . . . a mobile for home for Mrs. Hyon to have and live in upon retirement" if she "continued to work as the Resident Manager for another five (5) years." Hyon agreed, but alleges she was "harassed, retaliated, and discriminated against" and alleges her employment was "wrongfully terminated" on August 18, 2020. Citywide allegedly stated it would terminate Hyon's employment "unless she agreed to relocate to another unit at 757 Kingsley." Hyon would not pay rent for this unit, but the "only compensation [she] would receive was the apartment to live in," and so she had "no choice but to decline the offer needing "income to support herself and her family." Hyon alleges this "was a sham offer designed to mask Defendants' discriminatory conduct" and retaliation for Hyon's earlier complaints about her security role.

On November 11, 2020, Su Hui Hyon filed a Notice of Related Case indicating civil unlawful detainer case 20STUD03584 is related to civil cases 20STCV42319 and 20STCV42326.

On December 18, 2020, Judge Rice concluded civil case 20STCV42319 is not related to civil unlawful detainer case 20STUD03584.

On January 5, 2021, Hyon filed a First Amended Complaint against Citywide, Paz-Sandra, 730 Kingsley, 757 Kingsley, Hong, Kim, Brody, and Does 1-20 stating an additional cause of action for elder abuse and omitting the previous cause of action for failure to provide employment records.

On March 11, 2021, Judge Rice found civil case 20STCV42319 is not related to civil case 20STCV42326, finding the "discrimination and harassment claims" in 20STCV42319 "expand far beyond the issues in 20STCV42326 and will not involve a determination of substantially similar issues.” 

On July 22, 2022, Hyon filed a Motion to Relate civil cases 20STCV42319 and 20STCV42326.

This case is pending in Department 49 of the Stanley Mosk courthouse with a Final Status Conference set for March 7, 2023.

·       730 Kingsley, LLC v. Su H. Hyon (20STCV42326) – initiated on November 4, 2020, 730 Kingsley, LLC filed a Complaint against Hyon and Does 1-10 stating causes of action for breach of contract, "breach of implied covenants," negligent and intentional interference with prospective economic relations, intentional interference with contract, malicious holdover, and "tortious injury to real property." 730 Kingsley alleges Hyon wrongly retained possession of 730 S. Kingsley Drive, Unit 206, Los Angeles, CA 90005 after termination of her employment as a resident manager for an apartment complex.

The Complaint alleges Citywide and Hyon "entered into a resident manager employment agreement" on April 27, 2012 providing that Hyon "would reside on [730 Kingsley's] property for $0.00 per month" during her employment, but providing that Hyon "may stay in the Unit without paying rents up to two (2) weeks . . . after the termination" and for any time "more than two (2) weeks . . . at the rate of $46.50 per day," provided this additional stay does not exceed one month. On August 17, 2020, Citywide "terminated [Hyon's] employment effective immediately," but Hyon "continued to remain on the premises" without paying rent. On September 16, 2020, 730 Kingsley served a 3-Day Notice to Quit on Hyon; Hyon "did not move within the 3-day period." 730 Kingsley alleges Hyon's continued occupation of the premises disrupts improvements to the property. On October 16, 2020, Citywide allegedly filed an unlawful detainer action against Hyon to recover possession of the unit. 730 Kingsley filed this complaint a few weeks later.

On November 11, 2020, Hyon filed a Notice of Related Case indicating civil unlawful detainer case 20STUD03584 is related to civil cases 20STCV42319 and 20STCV42326.

On December 31, 2020, 730 Kingsley filed a First Amended Complaint against Hyon and Does 1-10 stating the same causes of action.

On February 25, 2021, Hyon and Sung Taek Lim filed a Cross-Complaint against 730 Kingsley, Citywide, Brody, B.W. Brody Construction Company, Inc., Brody, Inc., and Roes 1-10 stating causes of action for negligence, elder abuse, housing discrimination, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and violation of the Los Angeles County Rent Stabilization Ordinance (LAMC 151.00, et seq.).

The Cross-Complaint alleges Citywide and 730 Kingsley hired Hyon “as a 'resident-manager' on April 27, 2012.” Hyon's employment agreement allegedly offered optional "residence on the premises," which Hyon accepted. After "some years," 730 Kingsley retained Brody, Inc. and Brody Construction to improve the Property, and began “efforts to remove the existing tenant to begin construction. Hyon alleges she was offered "the opportunity to move into another unit," but "her sole compensation . . . would be free rent,” so Hyon declined. "Shortly thereafter on August 18, 2020," Citywide terminated Hyon from her position as a resident-manager and 730 Kingsley soon began attempting to evict Hyon. Hyon also (rather generically) alleges she experienced "a host of Labor Code violations" during her employment.

Hyon alleges 730 Kingsley has engaged in various self-help eviction tactics, including "cut[ting] off Mrs. Hyon's access to her secured parking "forc[ing Hyon] to live without hot water at times "inform[ing] the post office [she] had been evicted and not to deliver her mail," and "chang[ing] the lock on the front door to the lobby without prov[id]ing . . . a replacement key." Hyon alleges the Los Angeles Police Department "informed the individual in charge that they cannot prevent [Hyon's] access to her residence without a court order.” Hyon was provided a replacement key, but discovered that "her water had been completely shut off" and her "temporary water piping had been severed.” Moreover, Hyon alleges 730 Kingsley "filed a Tenant Habitability Plan" to the City of Los Angeles in May 2020 "to obtain approval of property improvement plans and permits to begin construction.” However, the Tenant Habitability Plan "omitted identification of [Hyon and Lim's] unit as an affected tenant and unit,” such that the City would be unaware of the presence of these tenants in issuing permits.

On March 11, 2021, Judge Rice declined to relate civil unlawful detainer case 20STUD03584 to civil cases 20STCV42319 and 20STCV42326.

On January 7, 2022, 730 Kingsley voluntarily dismissed its causes of action for breach of contract and breach of implied covenants without prejudice.

On March 18, 2022, Citywide filed a Motion to Bifurcate seeking a separate trial on the issue of damages after a trial on the issues of liability and causation. This Motion is pending determination.

On May 19, 2022, 730 Kingsley, Brody, Brody Inc., and Brody Construction filed a Motion to Bifurcate seeking a three-phase trial addressing "dispositive affirmative defenses first," then "trial of liability" on remaining claims, and finally a "trial on damages This Motion is pending determination.

On July 6, 2022, 730 Kingsley, Citywide, Hyon, and Lim filed a Stipulation to Consolidate cases 20STCV42326 and 20STCV42319.

On July 8, 2022, Judge Stephen I. Goorvitch declined to execute the Stipulation, pointing out that Judge Rice found the cases not related on March 11, 2021 and "agree[ing] with that analysis." Judge Goorvitch indicated the parties could seek reconsideration of Judge Rice's order "from Department One per Local Rule 3.3(f)(3)." Judge Goorvitch also denied the parties’ request to assign both cases to Department 39, where later-filed case 20STCV42326 is pending, and indicated "[o]nly Department One may assign cases in a different manner" than dictated by CRC 3.300(h)(1)(A).

This case is pending in Department 39 of the Stanley Mosk courthouse with the next hearing set for August 26, 2022 on the Motions to Bifurcate.

Upon review, the cases are not related within the meaning of CRC 3.300(a). In declining to relate the cases, Judge Rice found the “discrimination and harassment claims” in 20STCV42319 would “expand far beyond the issues in 20STCV42326 and will not involve a determination of substantially similar issues.” Judge Goorvitch “agreed with that analysis.” Department 1 also agrees with this analysis, and further notes the presence of several wage, wage statement, and unfair business practices in case 20STCV42319 which “expand far beyond the issues in 20STCV42326 and will not involve a determination of substantially similar issues.” Though the Court recognizes this Motion is unopposed, the cases ultimately do not appear related within the meaning of CRC 3.300(a).

Brief Descriptions of Operative Pleadings

Initially, Hyon’s age and sex discrimination, retaliation, and failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, or retaliation, and wrongful termination claims concern Hyon’s termination in August 2020 following years of Labor Code violations and increased responsibilities to monitor the premises for squatters. Hyon alleges discriminated against her by finding she could not carry out her role as an “apartment manager because [Hyon], as a woman, was unable to keep the premises secure from the local homeless population," and subsequently terminating her employment. (FAC, para. 72.) Hyon alleges the decision to terminate her was motivated by her "complaints and resistance to Defendants' statements . . . that [she] was no longer qualified to perform the duties of a Residential Manager because of her biological sex." (FAC, para. 91.) Hyon also alleges her "age was a substantial motivating reason for Defendants’ decision to terminate her employment." (FAC, para. 83.)

Hyon alleges her termination "based on her age and/or se constitutes "wrongful termination in violation of public policy (FAC, para. 110.) Hyon also alleges she "resigned because of [intolerable] working conditions," including "failure to be paid at least a minimum wage" or "minimum salary," "failure to be paid overtime," "failure to receive accurate wage statements failure to receive "employer contributions . . . for all income earned," and "being forced to accept an offer to continue working without a salary but for free rent, or resign from her employment and vacate her home." (FAC, para. 116-118.)

By contrast, Hyon’s Cross-Complaint in 20STCV42326 is limited to Citywide’s efforts to evict Hyon and Lim from Unit 206, whether through an unlawful detainer action, self-help eviction, or by simply proceeding with construction despite their presence by filing a Tenant Habitability Plan omitting Unit 206. The Cross-Complaint does not address Hyon’s responsibilities as a resident-manager to “keep the premises secure,” Hyon’s complaints about this function, Hyon’s sex, or wage violations experienced by Hyon.  Hyon’s Cross-Complaint alleges 730 Kingsley sought to make improvements to the complex and thus began “efforts to remove the existing tenants.” Hyon alleges Citywide made an unacceptable offer for a new rent-free unit without salary, and alleges Citywide terminated her employment when she refused that offer. Hyon did not leave her unit and 730 Kingsley began engaging in self-help eviction tactics, such as locking Hyon out of the complex, interfering with her mail, cutting off her water, and omitting her unit from a Tenant Habitability Plan.

Hyon’s cross-claims in case 20STCV42326 are based on noticeably different events than her claims in case 20STCV42319. Strikingly, Hyon’s First Amended Complaint does not even reference 730 Kingsley’s self-help eviction tactics, use of a Tenant Habitability Plan omitting Hyon’s unit, or refusal to pay relocation assistance—the factual bases for Hyon’s claims in case 20STCV42326.[1] Instead, the First Amended Complaint focuses on Hyon’s performance of her dangerous patrol responsibilities as a resident-manager, alleged termination for inability to perform those responsibilities due to her biological sex, and Labor Code violations persisting throughout Hyon’s employment. (See FAC, para. 116-118.) The claims appear dissimilar and, hinging on different factual allegations, appear unlikely to require determination of overlapping questions of fact.

Overlapping Claims

Hyon argues the cases are related under CRC 3.300(a)(1) because the cases “have a majority of the parties in common” as well as “two common claims” and other “interconnected” claims.[2] Hyon asserts the cases involve “the same or similar claims” because she asserts "two common claims" for elder abuse and housing discrimination, as well as "interconnected" claims for discrimination, harassment, and negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress. For the reasons discussed above, Hyon’s claims for discrimination, harassment, and emotional distress are not “interconnected.” Further, even the “common claims” are not based on the same events.

Hyon's cross-claim for elder abuse is based on the failure to pay permanent relocation assistance, use of self-help eviction tactics, and filing of "the instant civil action [20STCV42326] and unlawful detainer action" 20STUD03584." (Cross-Complaint, para. 118-121.) Hyon's claim for elder abuse is based on "failure to pay [Hyon] all wages earned misappropriation of "income earned by her and due for her services rendered as an employee," and prosecution of "civil action . . . 20STCV42326 and unlawful detainer action" 20STUD03584. (FAC, para. 178-185.) Though the claims share the same name, they are based on different facts.

Hyon’s cross-claim for housing discrimination is based on allegations that the actions elsewhere described in the Cross-Complaint were “substantially motivated by her age, sex, source of income, race, and national origin.” (Cross-Complaint, para. 105.) The Cross-Complaint describes Citywide’s sham offer, termination of Hyon after rejection of the sham offer, and 730 Kingsley’s subsequent self-help eviction tactics (including the erroneous Tenant Habitability Plan) and litigation against Hyon. By contrast, Hyon’s claim for housing discrimination is based on “the discriminatory termination of [Hyon’s] employment . . . because of her sex” and “retaliation against [Hyon] who opposed practices unlawful,” i.e., opposed the determination she could not perform her patrol duties because of her sex. (FAC, para. 166-167; para. 52 (termination "was retaliation for Plaintiff’s complaints and resistance to Defendants’ statements . . . that she was no longer qualified to perform the duties of a Residential Manager because of her biological sex as a female.”)) Again, the “common” claims are not based on the same facts. The Cross-Complaint does not concern Hyon’s patrol responsibilities or alleged inability to perform those patrols because of her biological sex or age. At most, the discrimination claims are commonly based on Defendants’ prosecution of civil litigation against Hyon. This alone is not sufficient overlap to warrant relation of cases otherwise involving different claims and issues.

Common Issues of Law or Fact

Hyon argues the cases nonetheless involve common issues supporting relation. For example, Hyon argues her “employment was terminated as a result of . . . increasing . . . responsibilities to include patrol of the buildings [Hyon] managed and securing units from squatters and non-tenants,” resulting in attacks and harassment of Hyon during sweeps. Hyon alleges her “employment was terminated because Defendants . . .  deemed [her] unfit to serve as a building manager because of her age and her gender.” But, as discussed above, review of Hyon’s First Amended Complaint and Cross-Complaint show that these are not common issues. Hyon’s Cross-Complaint does not reference her responsibility to patrol the complexes for squatters, complaints about safety during these sweeps, or Citywide’s determination that she was “unfit” to serve as a resident-manager. Hyon’s Cross-Complaint alleges her employment was terminated after she declined a sham offer for a new position with a rent-free unit but no salary, and alleges this offer was made to clear her out of the complex to begin construction. Hyon’s sex and age discrimination theory based on termination for failure to carry out patrol responsibilities is only at issue in case 20STCV42319.

Specifically, in case 20STCV42319, Hyon describes in detail "four harassing and discriminatory incidents" between January and February 2020. (FAC, para. 39-49.) Hyon alleges "a female homeless person attempted to break into [her] unit," injuring Hyon’s back in the process. She alleges a homeless male suddenly held up and attempted to strike [her] in the head with a long iron rod.” She alleges she asked "three strangers (who appeared to be homeless) walking" around "to leave the premises," causing them to threaten her with a knife. She alleges she discovered a sleeping woman in one of the units and screamed, scaring the woman away, prompting Kim and Hong to "inform[] [her] that Citywide will need a male apartment manager instead of a female" to handle squatters. These incidents are alleged to support Hyon’s sex discrimination theory, and are not referenced at all in case 20STCV42326. Hyon’s claims in case 20STCV42319 may require evidence regarding these incidents to establish danger to Hyon or Hyon’s ability to perform patrols, while such evidence would be irrelevant to Hyon’s claims in case 20STCV42326 concerning self-help eviction tactics not described in case 20STCV42319. Relating the cases would expand the scope of both cases.

Hyon also asserts her cross-claims for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress are based on “the same facts noted above and relied on in supporting . . . wrongful termination” claims in 20STCV42319. (Motion, p. 10.) This is not accurate. Hyon’s wrongful termination claims are based on Labor Code violations, particularly wage violations and Citywide’s alleged sham offer for a rent-free unit, and on age and sex discrimination. (FAC, para. 110 ("termination of [Hyon's] employment based on her age and/or sex  . . . give rise to [her] claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy"); para. 116-118 ("working conditions that violated public policy” forced Hyon to resign)) By contrast, Hyon’s infliction of emotional distress claims are based on 730 Kingsley’s “self-help eviction tactics [which] were a substantial factor in causing . . . severe emotional distress.” (Complaint, para. 89, 96.) Hyon’s negligent infliction of emotional distress claim is additionally based on “defendant’s negligence,” i.e., negligently “fail[ing] to list Unit 206 on the Tenant Habitability Plan, refusing to pay [Hyon] relocation assistance, exercising self-help, fail[ing] to provide habitable premises, and initiating and continuing with construction while [Hyon and Lim] continue to reside on the premises. (Cross-Complaint, para. 80, 96.)  The claims are facially not based on “the same facts.”

Risk of Conflicting Rulings Regarding Resident-Manager Status

Hyon argues there is a risk of conflicting rulings regarding common issues, but identifies only her status as a resident-manager or employee-manager as a common issue. Hyon argues the “facts . . . regarding [her] status as a resident-manager” in case 20STCV42319 “are facts supporting [her] claims for illegal eviction” in case 20STCV42326. (Motion, p. 10.) But Hyon has not explained why her status as a resident-manager would be at issue in case 20STCV42319. Indeed, the “issue has been fully briefed in [case 20STCV42326] through 730 Kingsley’s Motion to Bifurcate but the parties have not addressed the same in” case 20STCV42319—likely because it is not at issue. (Motion, p. 10.)

Hyon’s status as a resident-manager determines whether certain eviction protections apply to her under the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance (LARSO, LAMC sec. 151.00 et seq.), but Hyon asserts LARSO protections and violations only in case 20STCV42326. (Motion, p. 7, 10; Cross-Complaint, para. 32-34 (alleging Hyon is a "resident manager" permitted to reside on the premises not "an employee-manager . . . required to reside on the premises as a condition of employment"); para. 40 (alleging "730 Kingsley can only evict . . . a resident manager" by complying with LARSO); para. 69-76 (alleging violation of LARSO in improperly evicting resident-manager)) Hyon does not even reference LARSO protections in her First Amended Complaint in case 20STCV42319 or allege any facts regarding whether her residence on the premises was “a condition of employment.” This is not a common issue in both cases and does not pose a risk of conflicting rulings.[3] 

Claims to the Same Property

Hyon argues the cases involve “claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the same property” because 730 Kingsley’s First Amended Complaint in case 20STCV42326 alleged Hyon damaged the complex by failing to vacate the premises. (Motion, p. 9; see FAC, para. 49-54 ("tortious injury to real property")) But Hyon has not identified any “claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to” the Kingsley complex in case 20STCV42319. Title and possession are not at issue in that case. (FAC, pp. 28-31 (prayer for relief; no claims to title or possession of property)) Moreover, Hyon does not state any “claims against” the complex or allege “damages to” it; Hyon asserts Defendants engaged in housing discrimination by wrongly terminating her employment on the basis of sex and age because her residence was based on her employment as a resident-manager, and seeks damages for discrimination. (FAC, p. 30.) The cases are not related under CRC 3.300(a)(3).

Wage, Wage Statement, and Unfair Business Practices Claims

Hyon also states claims for failure to pay overtime wages, minimum wages, wages due upon termination, failure to provide wage statements, and unfair business practices (Bus. & Prof. Code sec. 17200, et seq.) during her tenure as a resident manager for Citywide, which will necessarily require evidence over a broad range of time. Hyon alleges Defendants "failed to pay [her] any wages at all for the twenty (20) overtime hours worked each week, including minimum wage," between October 2016 and October 2020. (FAC, para. 60, 129.) Hyon also pursues an unlawful business practices claim based on Defendants’ alleged "willful scheme, through which [Hyon] was denied minimum wages earned, overtime wages earned, and accurate wage statements, and [her] employment terminated on a discriminatory basis." (FAC, para. 155.)

Hyon’s Motion to Relate does not address these cases. The Court is concerned that relation and reassignment of case 20STCV42319 to meet case 20STCV42326 (as requested by Hyon) would substantially expand the scope of the latter case by requiring the parties to prepare to try the wage and unfair business practices claims alongside Hyon’s other dissimilar cross-claims for negligence, infliction of emotional distress, and elder abuse largely based on Citywide and 730 Kingsley’s efforts to vacate tenants to begin construction. This does not appear efficient; it would more likely disrupt the upcoming trial in case 20STCV42326, an undesirable outcome.

Request to Reassign Cases to Department 39 For Consolidation

Finally, Hyon “requests that the Court assigned the related matters to Department 39” where case 20STCV42326 is pending. Hyon argues case 20STCV42326 is actually the earlier-filed case, despite being higher-numbered, because the Complaint in that case was filed at 10:20 a.m. while the Complaint in 20STCV42319 was filed at 7:57 pm, arguing the case numbers do not “reflect the order in which the cases were filed.” (Alavi Decl., Exh. A, Exh. C.) Hyon also argues this assignment would promote judicial efficiency because Judge Goorvitch, sitting in Department 39, has “already heard multiple discovery motions [and] pre-trial motions.” Hyon asserts Judge Goorvitch has more “substantial familiarity with the pertinent issues and counsel” compared to Judge Randolph M. Hammock in Department 49. This request is denied as moot, because the cases are not related.

Conclusion

The Court DENIES the Motion to Relate civil cases 20STCV42319 and 20STCV42326.

Hyon to give notice of this Order.