Judge: Joel R Wohlfeil, Case: 37-2022-00038519-CU-NP-CTL, Date: 2024-06-27 Tentative Ruling
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
DEPT.:
EVENT DATE:
EVENT TIME:
HALL OF JUSTICE
TENTATIVE RULINGS - June 24, 2024
06/27/2024 09:00:00 AM C-73 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
JUDICIAL OFFICER:Joel R. Wohlfeil
CASE NO.:
CASE CATEGORY:
EVENT TYPE:
CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:
Civil - Unlimited Non-PI/PD/WD tort - Other Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00038519-CU-NP-CTL NORMAN VS ESSEX PROPERTY TRUST INC [EFILE] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Strike, 04/29/2024
The Motion (ROA # 269) of Defendants and principally Essex Management Corporation ('EMC') (collectively 'Defendants') to strike portions of the First Amended Complaint ('FAC') filed by Plaintiffs Alexis Norman, Nicolette Cochran, Jeffry Bai, Nazali Ghazari, Alexander Charles, Felipe Cozachevici, Adrian Magdaleno, Alisa Abed-Stephen, and Emma Aistrop (collectively 'Plaintiffs'), is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
The Court strikes paragraph 4 within the Prayer for Relief (page 52, line 26). The remaining disputed allegations are not stricken.
Defendants' Request (ROA # 272) for judicial notice is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court takes judicial notice of Exh's 'B, C and D' and the date only on Exh. 'A' was filed with the Court; otherwise, the Request is DENIED.
Plaintiffs' Request (ROA # 282) for judicial notice is GRANTED.
Defendant argues the FAC filed with the Court impermissibly differs from the proposed pleading filed with the motion to amend, including the addition of a subclass. Normally, this difference would concern the Court and would support striking the pleading. However, the declaration of Plaintiffs' counsel filed with the opposition includes email correspondence which clearly demonstrates the changes were disclosed to defense counsel prior to the hearing on the motion to amend. Defense counsel expressly agreed to move forward with the amended pleading despite the changes.
Paragraph 95 of the FAC alleges the following class and subclass: Unsubstantiated-Charges Class: All former residents of Defendants' properties whose leaseholds terminated between September 27, 2018, to present, and who had at least $125 of their security deposit retained for cleaning, repairs and/or replacements combined (the 'Plaintiff Class').
Unauthorized Deductions Subclass: All former residents of Defendants' properties whose leaseholds terminated between September 27, 2018, to present, and who had a portion of their security deposit retained for a purpose not authorized by Civil Code section 1950.5(e) (the 'Plaintiff Subclass').
The decision whether a case is suitable to proceed as a class action ordinarily is made on a motion for class certification. Shaw v. Los Angeles Unified School District (2023) 95 Cal. App. 5th 740, 760, 761.
Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS
3127023 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: NORMAN VS ESSEX PROPERTY TRUST INC [EFILE] 37-2022-00038519-CU-NP-CTL When the invalidity of the class allegations is revealed on the face of the complaint, the Court may decide the issue by demurrer or motion to strike. Id. at 761.
But California Courts have long disfavored disposing of class allegations at the pleading stage. Id. Accordingly, the Court may decide the question on demurrer / motion to strike only if it is clear there is no reasonable possibility that the Plaintiffs could establish a community of interest among the potential class members and that individual issues predominate over common questions of law and fact. Id. If there is a reasonable possibility Plaintiff can plead a prima facie community of interest among class members, the preferred course is to defer decision on the propriety of the class action until an evidentiary hearing has been held on the appropriateness of class litigation. Id. All that is normally required for a complaint to survive a demurrer or motion to strike as to the propriety of class litigation is that the complaint allege facts that tend to show: (1) an ascertainable class of Plaintiffs, and (2) questions of law and fact which are common to the class. Id. Section 382 of the Code of Civil Procedure authorizes class suits when the question is one of a common or general interest, of many persons, or when the parties are numerous, and it is impracticable to bring them all before the Court. Id. at 760.
To obtain certification, a party must establish the existence of both an ascertainable class and a well-defined community of interest among the class members. Id. The community of interest requirement involves three factors: (1) predominant common questions of law or fact; (2) class representatives with claims or defenses typical of the class; and (3) class representatives who can adequately represent the class. Id. Regarding ascertainability: 'Plaintiff's proposed class definition articulates an ascertainable class, in that it defines the class 'in terms of objective characteristics and common transactional facts' that make 'the ultimate identification of class members possible when that identification becomes necessary.' (Hicks v. Kaufman & Broad Home Corp. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 908, 915.)' Noel v. Thrifty Payless, Inc. (2019) 7 Cal. 5th 955, 961 [250 Cal. Rptr. 3d 234, 237, 238.
Ascertainability is required in order to give notice to putative class members as to whom the judgment in the action will be res judicata. Hicks v. Kaufman and Broad Home Corp. (2001) 89 Cal. App. 4th 908, 914.
As alleged, the 'Unsubstantiated-Charges Class' is ascertainable because it relies on objective characteristics and common transactional facts. Retention of a portion of a security deposit that is unsupported by a vendor invoice is an objective characteristic and common transactional fact that make it possible to identify class members utilizing defendants' records. Although it may prove burdensome to determine which tenants had at least $125 of their security deposit retained, this difficulty does not render the class unascertainable.
Regarding the 'Unauthorized Deductions Subclass,' Defendants argue: 'Determining a 'reasonably necessary' amount, whether an item in a unit needs to be repaired, what level of cleanliness was owed, or even whether a charge is authorized by the Code are all individualized factual inquires. There is no way for the Court to ascertain membership in the Subclass without reviewing each and every tenant file.' Moving Brief at p. 11, lines 17 - 20. This argument is directed at commonality (discussed below), not ascertainability.
In addition, this subclass is sufficiently ascertainable, as alleged. Use of any portion of a security deposit for utility charges is an objective characteristic and common transactional fact that make it possible to identify class members utilizing defendants' records.
Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS
3127023 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: NORMAN VS ESSEX PROPERTY TRUST INC [EFILE] 37-2022-00038519-CU-NP-CTL Regarding commonality, paragraph 96 of the FAC alleges the predominance of common issues: a pattern and practice of failing to itemize charges or provide vendor invoices; and a pattern and practice of applying security deposits to utility charges.
The FAC sufficiently alleges a universal 'unlawful scheme' that takes place across different apartment complexes in different cities. Thus, the elements of typicality and adequacy of class representation are sufficiently alleged.
Regarding the allegations related to invoices, whether the alleged violation are 'mere informational injuries' is a question of fact that cannot be determined via this Motion.
Regarding the allegations of fraudulent conduct, these allegations are potentially proper and relevant because of the section 1950.5 bad faith analysis. It is possible, as alleged, that Defendants utilized a common fraudulent scheme across all their apartment complexes in an effort to retain security deposits.
This is a question of fact that cannot be determined via this Motion.
Finally, Plaintiffs concede that the Civil Code section 3345 claim for penalties is not supported by the allegations.
Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS
3127023