Judge: Deirdre Hill, Case: 22IWUD01201, Date: 2022-09-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22IWUD01201    Hearing Date: September 12, 2022    Dept: M

Hearing Date:                          September 12, 2022

Moving Parties:                      Plaintiffs and defendants Illiem Thamer, Ruthie Zipper, and Robin Roth

Responding Party:                  Defendants and plaintiff Nola Properties LLC and Lars Rojdon Viklund

Motions to Consolidate for All Purposes

            The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply and supplemental opposition.

RULING

The motion is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

            21TRCV00765

            In 21TRCV00765, on October 22, 2021, plaintiffs Illien Thamer, Izack Saucedo, Illien Thamer on behalf of Nicolas Herrera, a minor, Robin Ruth, and Ruthie Zipper filed a complaint against Nola Properties, LLC, Lars Rojdon Viklund, Denton Developments, Inc., and Kevin Lang for violation of LACC 8.52.130 et seq. (Retaliatory Eviction and Anti-Harassment), violation of Civil Code §1940.2, and violation of Civil Code §1941.1, and violation of Bus. and Prof. Code §17200.

            On December 21, 2021, plaintiffs filed a FAC.

            On April 13, 2022, the court denied defendants Nola Properties and Lars Rojdon Viklun’s motion to strike and granted Denton Developments and Kevin Lang’s motion to strike.

            On April 27, 2022, plaintiffs filed a SAC.

            On August 22, 2022, the court denied defendants Denton and Lang’s motion to strike.

22IWUD01154

In 22IWUD01154, on July 8, 2022, plaintiff Nola Properties LLC filed an unlawful detainer complaint against Illien Thamer based on a three-day notice to pay rent or quit as to property at 149 Paseo De La Concha, #B, Redondo Beach, CA 90277.  Plaintiff alleges that Thamer’s monthly rent is $1,200 and that she owes past due rent of $3,600 from April 1, 2022 through June 30, 2022.

22IWUD01198

In 22IWUD01198, on July 13, 2022, plaintiff Nola Properties LLC filed an unlawful detainer complaint against Ruthie Zipper based on a three-day notice to pay rent or quit as to property at 147 Paseo De La Concha, #C, Redondo Beach, CA 90277.  Plaintiff alleges that Zipper’s monthly rent is $1,500 and that she owes past due rent of $4,500 from April 1, 2022 through June 30, 2022.

            22IWUD01201

In 22IWUD01201, on July 13, 2022, plaintiff Nola Properties LLC filed an unlawful detainer complaint against Ruthie Zipper based on a three-day notice to pay rent or quit. as to property at 147 Paseo De La Concha, #A, Redondo Beach, CA 90277.   Plaintiff alleges that Roth’s monthly rent is $1,800 and that she owes past due rent of $5,400 from April 1, 2022 through June 30, 2022.

On August 10, 2022, the cases were deemed related.

LEGAL AUTHORITY

CCP §1048 states:  “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.”

CCP §1049 states:  “An action is deemed to be pending from the time of its commencement until its final determination upon appeal, or until the time for appeal has passed, unless the judgment is sooner satisfied.”

Under California Rules of Court Rule 3.350(a)(1), a notice of motion to consolidate must:     (A) List all named parties in each case, the names of those who have appeared, and the names of their respective attorneys of record; (B) Contain the captions of all the cases sought to be consolidated, with the lowest numbered case shown first; and (C) Be filed in each case sought to be consolidated.  (2) The motion to consolidate:  (A) Is deemed a single motion for the purpose of determining the appropriate filing fee, but memorandums, declarations, and other supporting papers must be filed only in the lowest numbered case; (B) Must be served on all attorneys of record and all non-represented parties in all of the cases sought to be consolidated; and (C) Must have a proof of service filed as part of the motion.

DISCUSSION

            The plaintiffs in 21TRCV00765 (civil case) and the defendants (Thamer, Zipper, and Roth) in 22IWUD01154, 22IWUD01198, and 22IWUD01201 (UD cases), respectively, request that the court consolidate the four related cases.

            Moving parties contend that the civil case and the UD cases involve numerous commons questions of law and fact, including retaliatory eviction, nonpayment of Covid rental debt, and Nola Properties’ failure to maintain the habitability of the rental property.  In their answers in the UD actions, defendants assert habitability, tenant harassment, and Covid-19 protections as affirmative defenses.  Moving parties argue that it is “not possible to decide the unlawful detainer actions without making factual and legal determinations that get to the heart of the claims” in the civil case.

            In opposition, Nola Properties objects to the requests to consolidate, arguing that they do not involve common questions of law.  Nola Properties contends that the UD actions involve the failure to pay rent for April, May, and June 2022.  Further, Nola argues, there is a strong policy in preserving the summary nature of unlawful detainer proceedings.

            The court finds that as to the UD actions, although defendants are asserting the same affirmative defenses, the actions involve different properties/units, monthly rental rate, and amount due.

As to whether to consolidate the UD actions with the civil action, the UD actions are summary in nature and involve possession and non-payment of rent.  “An unlawful detainer action is a summary proceeding designed to adjudicate the right of immediate possession; the only claims that are cognizable in such a proceeding are those bearing directly on the immediate right of possession.”  Hong Sang Market, Inc. v. Peng (2018) 20 Cal. App. 5^th 474, 490.  An unlawful detainer action therefore “usually has very limited res judicata effect.”  Id. at 491.  “The denial of certain procedural rights enjoyed by litigants in ordinary actions is deemed necessary in order to prevent frustration of the summary proceedings by the introduction of delays and extraneous issues.”  Martin-Bragg v. Moore (2013) 219 Cal. App. 4^th 367, 385.  “In unlawful detainer proceedings, ordinarily the only triable issue is the right to possession of the disputed premises, along with incidental damages resulting from the unlawful detention.”  Id.  The UD defendants have raised habitability and retaliatory eviction as affirmative defenses.  Further, they are not barred from raising the same in the civil case.  Landeros v. Pankey (1995) 39 Cal. App. 4^th 1167, 1169 (“independent action by a tenant or former tenant for damages for breach of a landlord’s warranty of habitability”).

The court notes that the cases cited by moving parties—Martin Bragg v. Moore (2013) 219 Cal. App. 4^th 367 and Asuncion v. Superior Court (1980) 108 Cal. App. 3d 141—are inapplicable.  Martin Bragg involved a title dispute.  Asuncion involved “complicated ownership issues involving assertions of fraud and deceptive practices” and title.

The court finds that judicial economy and efficiency will not be served by consolidation.

The motion is thus DENIED.

Moving parties are ordered to give notice of the ruling.