Judge: Elaine Lu, Case: 22STCV40554, Date: 2023-10-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV40554    Hearing Date: March 19, 2024    Dept: 26

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 26

Procedural Background

On September 8, 2022, Plaintiffs Tawanda Honors, et al.[1] (collectively “Honors Plaintiffs”) filed a breach of habitability action (“Honors Action”) against Defendants 5505 Ackerfield Apts LLC (“Ackerfield”), AJJ2020 LLC (“AJJ2020”), Masuda Investments LLC (“Madusa”), and Weststar Property Management, Inc. (“Weststar”).  On December 22, 2023, Honors Plaintiffs filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“Honors SAC”) against Defendants Ackerfield, AJJ2020, Masuda, and Weststar.  The FAC asserts six causes of action for (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Breach of the Implied Warranty of Habitability, (3) Nuisance, (4) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, (5) Negligence, and (6) Violation of Civil Code § 1942.4.

On July 27, 2023, Plaintiffs Edana Jones, Tykisha Bain, and Raydell Latrent Patterson (collectively “Jones Plaintiffs”) filed a breach of habitability action (“Jones Action”) against Defendants Ackerfield, AJJ2020, and Masuda.  The Jones Action complaint asserts four causes of action for (1) Failure to Provide Habitable Dwelling, (2) Breach of the Covenant and Right to Quiet Enjoyment and Possession of the Property, (3) Nuisance, and (4) Negligence.

On October 30, 2023, the Court deemed the Honors Action and Jones Action related and transferred the Jones Action to the instant department.  (Minute Order 10/30/23.) 

On November 29, 2023, Defendant Ackerfield filed the instant motion to consolidate the Honors Action and Jones Action.  On March 4, 2024, the Jones Plaintiffs filed an opposition.  On March 7, 2024, Ackerfield filed a reply.

On March 13, 2024, the Court continued the instant motion to March 19, 2024.

Allegations of the Operative Complaints

            The Honors SAC alleges that:

            Masuda was the owner of the property at 5505 Ackerfield Ave. Long Beach, CA 90805 (“Subject Property”)from 2012-2020.  (Honors SAC ¶ 35.)  AJJ2020 was the Owner of the Subject Property from 2020-2021.  (Honors SAC ¶ 36.)  Ackerfield is the current owner of the Subject Property.  (Honors SAC ¶ 37.)  Weststar is the current property manager of the Subject Property.  (Honors SAC ¶ 38.)  The Honors Plaintiffs each entered into a written lease agreement for the lease of their respective units at the Subject Property.  (Honors SAC ¶¶ 1-24, 34.)

            “[Honors Plaintiffs] have been living at the property going back to as early as 2016 and the failure to remedy and fix these uninhabitable conditions date back that far.”  (Honors SAC ¶ 39.)  “Pursuant to terms of the LEASE AGREEMENT, [Honors Plaintiffs] agreed to pay monthly rents in exchange for habitable, safe and clean-living quarters.”  (Honors SAC ¶ 40.)  However, “[Masuda, AJJ2020, Ackerfield, and Weststar] have not maintained the SUBJECT PROPERTY therein causing and allowing slum and substandard living conditions. During plaintiffs' tenancy, the following conditions have existed at the SUBJECT PROPERTY, and have been allowed to exist by defendants, and each of them (collectively, the ‘CONDITIONS’): a. Insect infestation; b. Visible mold and mildew; c. Leaking roof; d. Lack of hot water; e. Defective plumbing; f. Broken kitchen sink; 9. Broken stairs; h. Excessive garbage or debris; i. No heat; j. Defective ventilation; k. Broken shower/bathtub; I. Holes in wall[.]”  (Honors SAC ¶ 41.)

            “[Honors] Plaintiffs suffered with lack of sleep, stress and anxiety because of the CONDITIONS at the SUBJECT PROPERTY. Plaintiffs continued to notify [Masuda, AJJ2020, Ackerfield, and Weststar] of their suffering, but defendants did nothing to help plaintiffs.”  (Honors SAC ¶ 42.) 

            “Fed up with the CONDITIONs at the SUBJECT PROPERTY, [Honors Plaintiffs] made a formal complaint to The City of Long Beach Department of Health.”  (Honors SAC ¶ 43.)  “The City of Long Beach Department of Health did an inspection of the SUBJECT PROPERTY on or about October 28, 2022. The SUBJECT PROPERTY was cited for violations. After 35 days of being notified of the violations, defendants did not fix or abate the SUBJECT PROPERTY.”  (Honors SAC ¶ 44.)

            “The [Honors Plaintiffs] in this action repeatedly notified the [Masuda, AJJ2020, Ackerfield, and Weststar] of the defective and dangerous conditions in their apartments and the defendants have simply ignored their pleas or tried to avoid fixing them properly.”  (Honors SAC ¶ 45.)  “In addition, during their tenancy at the SUBJECT PROPERTY, [Honors Plaintiffs] repeatedly notified [Masuda, AJJ2020, Ackerfield, and Weststar] of the health issues they were experiencing as a result of the CONDITIONS, including, but not limited to respiratory issues.”  (Honors SAC ¶ 46.)  “Moreover, [Honors Plaintiffs] repeatedly informed [Masuda, AJJ2020, Ackerfield, and Weststar] that the CONDITIONs at the SUBJECT PROPERTY were causing them extreme anxiety and discomfort.”  (Honors SAC ¶ 47.) 

            “Despite their knowledge of the CONDITIONs and [Honors Plaintiffs] health issues, the [Masuda, AJJ2020, Ackerfield, and Weststar] failed to properly remedy the CONDITIONS, placing the health and safety of plaintiffs at risk.”  (Honors SAC ¶ 48.)

            The Jones Action Complaint (“Jones Complaint”) alleges that:

            5505 Ackerfield Avenue, Long Beach, CA 90805 (“Subject Property”) “is a multiple family dwelling, which is occupied by tenants and their families, including low-income tenants, minorities and families with children.” (Jones Complaint ¶ 14.)

            Ackerfield is the current owner of the Subject Property since 2021 and were Jones Plaintiffs’ landlord.  (Id. ¶¶ 5-6.)  AJJ2020 owned the Subject Property from October 2020 to October 2021 and were landlords of the Subject Property.  (Id. ¶¶ 7-8.)  Masuda owned the Subject Property from December 2012 to October 2020 and were landlords of the Subject Property.  (Id. ¶¶ 9-10.) 

Jones Plaintiffs are current and former tenants of Subject Property.  (Id. ¶ 1.)  Plaintiff Edana Jones resided in unit 103 from October 2021 to February 2023.  (Id. ¶ 2, Exh. A.)  Plaintiffs Tykisha Bain and Raydell Latrent Patterson have lived in unit 104 from July 2019 to present.  (Id. ¶ 3, Exh. A.)  Jones Plaintiffs made complaints about the following:

UNIT 103

·       Infestation of rodents, December 2022 to February 2023

·       Inoperable heater, October 2021 to February 2023

·       Broken smoke detectors, October 2021 to February 2023

·       No hot water, October 2021 to February 2023

·       Clogged plumbing in the bathroom, January 2022 to February 2023

·       Holes in the walls, December 2022 to February 2023

·       Deteriorated florring [sic] in the living room and kitchen, October 2021 to February 2023

·       Leak from ceiling, June 2022 to February 2023

            Unit 104

·       Infestation of gnats and shower bugs, July 2022 to the present

·       Infestation of rats, November 2022 to the present

·       Infestation of mice, August 2022 to the present

·       Inoperable heater, July 2019 to the present

·       Mold and mildew in September 2022 to the present

·       Deteriorated bathtub and shower, December 2022 to the present

·       Deteriorated sink in bathroom, August 2019 to the present

·       Defective dishwasher, December 2022 to the present

(Jones Complaint ¶ 16.)

            On March 25, 2023, a qualified building inspector conducted an inspection of the property and found:

            In UNIT 104:

·       Inadequate maintenance of dwelling. UCADB Section 302 (15)

·       General dilapidation or improper maintenance. HSC 17920.3. (a) 14

·       Evidence of insect infestation, vermin, or rodents. HSC 17920.3. (a) 12, 14. See Photos # 100-103, 131, 133-135

·       Doors assembly does not properly seal opening or provide effective weather protection. HSC Section 17920.3(a)14 See photos (JPG) # 80, 81

·       Defective or deteriorated window screens. HSC Section 17920.3(a) 14. See Photo # 76-79

·       Defective or deteriorated flooring. HSC Section 17920.3(b) 2 See photos # 82, 83

·       Wall covering assemblies do not properly seal opening or provide effective protection. HSC Section 17920.3(a)14 See photos # 87, 90-93, 96-98

·       Wall surface is bubbling and separating from materials. HSC Section 17920.3(a)14 See photos # 121, 122

·       Wall areas previously repaired. Status of repair or source of damage not known. HSC Section 17920.3(a)14 See photos # 110-112, 136

·       Defective or deteriorated bathroom shower. HSC 17920.3(a) 14 & (e) See photos # 107-109

·       The wall baseboards exhibit stains from apparent water leaks. Source of leak is unknown. HSC Section 17920.3(a)14 & (c) 87, 91-93, 97, 98, 113-126, & Video 001.

·       Bathroom ceiling is unsanitary with mold growth. HSC 17920.3(a)13, 14 See photos # 110-112

·       Dampness/moisture in walls. HSC Section 17920.3(a) 11 See photos # 84-86, 94-96, 104-106, 123-126

·       Improper kitchen exhaust hood material. Exhaust hood shall have a smooth interior surface. HSC Section 17920.3 (a) 7 & (f) See photos # 99

·       Water closet caulking cracked and deteriorated; bolts are rusted and unsanitary and lack required caps. HSC 17920.3(e) See photos # 128, 129

·       Defective or deteriorated wall light switch. HSC Section 17920.3 (d) See photos # 130

(Jones Complaint ¶ 17, Exh. B.) 

            Jones Plaintiffs made numerous complaints about these substandard conditions at the Subject Property, which Defendants Ackerfield, AJJ2020, and Masuda refused to repair.  (Id. ¶ 18.)  Rather, Defendants Ackerfield, AJJ2020, and Masuda threatened, harassed, and intimidated the Jones Plaintiffs when they continued to complain about the Subject Property’s condition.  (Id. ¶ 18.) 

Legal Standard

California Rules of Court Rule 3.350(a) states in relevant part:

(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.

(Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.350(a).) Also, the consolidation statute, Code of Civil Procedure § 1048, provides in relevant part:

(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.

(b) The court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy, may order a separate trial of any cause of action, including a cause of action asserted in a cross-complaint, or of any separate issue or of any number of causes of action or issues, preserving the right of trial by jury required by the Constitution or a statute of this state or of the United States.

(CCP § 1048(a).) The granting or denial of the motion to consolidate rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, and will not be reversed except upon a clear showing of abuse of discretion. (See Fellner v. Steinbaum (1955) 132 Cal.App.2d 509, 511.)

Discussion

            Defendant Ackerfield seeks to consolidate the Honors Action with the Jones Action for all purposes.

            “Code of Civil Procedure section 1048, subdivision (a), authorizes the trial court, when appropriate, to ‘order a joint hearing or trial’ or to ‘order all the actions consolidated.’ Under the statute and the case law, there are thus two types of consolidation: a consolidation for purposes of trial only, where the two actions remain otherwise separate; and a complete consolidation or consolidation for all purposes, where the two actions are merged into a single proceeding under one case number and result in only one verdict or set of findings and one judgment.”  (Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1127, 1147.)  “Consolidation under Code of Civil Procedure section 1048 is permissive, and it is for the trial court to determine whether the consolidation is for all purposes or for trial only.”  (Id. at p.1149.)  Moreover, there is no requirement that the parties be identical for a complete consolidation. (See e.g., Jefferson Street Ventures, LLC v. City of Indio (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 1175, 1206 [noting in action involving multiple but not completely overlapping parties that “consolidation appears particularly appropriate in this case—the cases are in the same court, involve the same property, and many (if not all) of the same damages.”] [italics added].)

            Here, numerous factors support a complete consolidation.  First, the claims at issue in both the Honors Action and Jones Action involve the same property – i.e., the Subject Property.  Further, the claims asserted in the Honors Action and Jones Action cover the same timeframe.  The Honors Action covers claims from 2016-2023, and the Jones Action covers claims from 2021-2023.  (Honors SAC ¶ 39; Jones Complaint ¶¶ 16-17.)  There is also substantial overlap of the alleged damages claimed in both the Honors Action and Jones Action; the respective plaintiffs in each of the two actions allege that they suffered economic damage, emotional injury, physical injury, and injury to personal property.  (Honors SAC ¶¶ 46-47, 53, 72, 74; Jones Complaint ¶¶ 31-33, 53, 62-63, 74,82, 84.) 

Moreover, the factual basis for the Plaintiffs’ respective claims in the Honors Action and Jones Action are nearly identical, namely, that all of the Plaintiffs’ respective units in the Subject Property are unhabitable due to lack of maintenance by all Defendants, and Defendants failed to repair the property.  (Honors SAC ¶¶ 41-45; Jones Complaint ¶¶ 15-22.)  In fact, many of the claimed unhabitable conditions suffered in the Honors Action and Jones Action are identical, such as insect infestations, lack of hot water, mold and mildew, holes in the wall, roof leaks, plumbing defects, and lack of heating.  (Honors SAC ¶¶ 41; Jones Complaint ¶ 16.)  Finally, there is a near complete overlap in defendants as the Honors Action and Jones Action include the owners and former owners of the Subject Property -- Defendants Ackerfield, AJJ2020, and Masuda.  The only difference in defendants is that the Honors Action also includes the current property manager Weststar. 

In sum, “consolidation appears particularly appropriate in this case—the cases are in the same court, involve the same property, and many (if not all) of the same damages.” (Jefferson Street Ventures, LLC, supra, 236 Cal.App.4th at p.1206.)

In opposition, the Jones Plaintiffs contend that the Court should deny consolidation because (1) the cases do not share common issues of law or fact, (2) the plaintiffs are represented by different firms, (3) consolidation would be prejudicial to Jones Plaintiffs, and (4) consolidation would increase trial complexity and confuse the jury.  Each of these contentions is without merit.

As explained above, the Jones Action and Honors Action share many common issues of law and fact as they involve the same defendants, the same property, the same harm, the same damages, and cover the same timeframe.  The fact that the actions do not share four causes of action is immaterial as the underlying factual basis for the claims in the Jones Action and Honors Action are the same.  The fact that the plaintiffs are represented by different firms is also immaterial; litigation can often involve numerous firms representing numerous parties without issue.  In fact, in the instant actions there are separate attorneys representing the defendants.  Further, the Jones Plaintiffs’ claim of jury confusion is unfounded.  Both the Jones Action and the Honors Action involve multiple plaintiffs that were tenants in different units and who would have suffered different damages.  Thus, any complexity in having multiple plaintiffs as tenants in different units is inherent in both the Jones Action and Honors Action even without consolidation.

Finally, Jones Plaintiffs’ claim of prejudice is unfounded.  There is no indication that a consolidated trial would be significantly longer.  The Jones Plaintiffs, Honors Plaintiffs, and Defendant Ackerfield have all indicated that the trial would be 7-10 days in the respective actions.  Moreover, many witnesses would likely be the same. 

The Jones Plaintiffs also claim prejudice because Plaintiffs would have to share protected and privileged work product.  (Elder Decl. ¶ 7.)  However, a consolidation – even for all purposes – does not eliminate or change standard work product rights and privileges.  Thus, the claims of prejudice are unfounded.

Accordingly, the Court finds that consolidation for all purposes is warranted under the lead action Case No. 22STCV40554. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, Defendant 5505 Ackerfield Apts LLC and Westar Property Management, Inc.’s motion for complete consolidation of Case Nos. 22STCV40554 and 23LBCV01405 is GRANTED.  Consolidation is ordered for all purposes under Case No. 22STCV40554.  All future pleadings are to be filed in the Lead Action only under Case No. 22STCV40554.

Moving Party is ordered to give notice to all parties in Case Nos. 22STCV40554 and 23LBCV01405 and file proof of service of such within five days.

DATED:  March 19, 2024                                                      ___________________________

                                                                                          Elaine Lu

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court