Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 24STCV05197, Date: 2025-02-04 Tentative Ruling

DEFENDANT PLOENPIDH HOUSTON AND HOUSTON HOSPITALITY LLC’S MOTION TO RELATE CASES

This action arises from breaches of a commercial lease for the property located at 1712-1716 N. Las Palmas Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90028 (the Property). Plaintiffs Vanowen Realty LLC (Vanowen); Arthur J. Saffir, Trustee of the Arthur J. Saffir Living Trust Dated February 9, 2000 and Restated September 8, 2011; Donna M. Zenobia Saffir, Trustee of the Donna M. Zenobia Saffir Living Trust Dated February 9, 2000 and Restated September 8, 201; Oliver S. Saffir & Patricia J. Saffir, Trustees of the Oliver S. Saffir & Patricia J. Saffir Trust Agreement Dated June 25, 1990; Warren Faubel & Priscilla Faubel, As Trustees of the Faubel Family Trust U/T/D Dated March 4, 1992 As Restated September 12, 2012; and Pandora Victor, As Trustee Under the Pandora Victor Trust Agreement Dated May 22, 1997 As Restated on March 29, 2011, are the managers and owners of the Property.

As alleged in Plaintiffs’ complaint, in June 2016, defendant Pleonpidh Houston (Houston) entered into a lease for the Property. In March 2020, Houston stopped paying rent. In May 2023, Houston made a payment to stave off eviction but failed to continue to pay the monthly rent and neglected to bring the past due rents current. Houston currently owes over $425,000, in addition to interest, fees, insurance, and taxes as required under the lease. At some point, Plaintiffs also discovered that Houston allowed defendant Houston Hospitality LLC (Houston Hospitality) to act as a tenant of the Property. Houston Hospitality is owned and controlled by Houston’s children, Jon Houston and Mark Houston. In September 2022, Plaintiffs discovered that Houston Hospitality sublet the property to defendant NBK Branded Entertainment, Inc. (NBK). NBK operated a club called Beetlehouse at the Property. Neither Houston Hospitality nor NBK are signatories to the lease agreement for the Property. Plaintiffs were not aware of and did not approve the sub-leases entered into concerning the Property.

On March 1, 2024, Plaintiffs commenced this action (24STCV05197) against defendants Houston, NBK, and Houston Hospitality for (1) negligence, (2) breach of contract, (3) intentional interference with contract, (4) fraud, (5) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and (6) negligent interference with prospective economic advantage.

On July 12, 2024, Plaintiff Vanowen commenced an unlawful detainer action (24STCV17422) (the “UD Action”) against Houston and unnamed occupants. Vanowen sought possession of the Property, costs incurred in the proceeding, reasonable attorney fees, and forfeiture of the lease agreement. The UD Action is pending in Department 38 of Stanley Mosk Courthouse.

On September 25, 2024, Houston and Houston Hospitality filed a Notice of Related Case contending Case Nos. 24STCV05197 and 24STCV17422 were related.

On September 28, 2024, Houston and Houston Hospitality filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Action. The motion to compel is scheduled to be heard on February 11, 2025.

On October 8, 2024, the court found the cases were not related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a).

Before the court are two motions: (1) Defendants Ploenpidh Houston and Houston Hospitality LLC’s Motion To Have Cases Related (“Motion to Relate”), and (2) Defendant Ploenpidh Houston’s Motion to Consolidate (“Motion to Consolidate”). The motions seek orders relating and consolidated Case Nos. 24STCV05197 and 24STCV17422. The motions are fully briefed.

The court cannot rule on the Motion to Relate for two reasons. First, Defendants Ploenpidh Houston and Houston Hospitality filed a motion to compel arbitration wherein moving parties request that the court stay all proceedings entirely until that motion is heard. (See Motion to Compel, p. 4:8-9). That motion will be heard on February 11, 2025. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.4, the action is therefore stayed until the motion to compel is determined.

Second, the Motion to Relate is brought before the wrong department. “If all the related cases have been filed in one superior court, the court, on notice to all parties, may order that the cases, including probate and family law cases, be related and may assign them to a single judge or department. In a superior court where there is a master calendar, the presiding judge may order the cases related. In a court in which cases are assigned to a single judge or department, cases may be ordered related as follows:

(A) Where all the cases listed in the notice are unlimited civil cases, or where all the cases listed in the notice are limited civil cases, the judge who has the earliest filed case must determine whether the cases must be ordered related and assigned to his or her department;

(B) Where the cases listed in the notice include both unlimited and limited civil cases, the judge who has the earliest filed unlimited civil case must determine whether the cases should be ordered related and assigned to his or her department;

(C) Where the cases listed in the notice contain a probate or family law case, the presiding judge or a judge designated by the presiding judge must determine whether the cases should be ordered related and, if so, to which judge or department they should be assigned;

(D) In the event that any of the cases listed in the notice are not ordered related under (A), (B), or (C), any party in any of the cases listed in the notice may file a motion to have the cases related. The motion must be filed with the presiding judge or the judge designated by the presiding judge[.]”

The Motion to Relate must be filed with the presiding judge in Department 1. Given that the court cannot rule on the Motion to Relate, the court likewise does not reach the Motion to Consolidate.

Based on the foregoing, this case is stayed pending determination of Defendants Ploenpidh Houston and Houston Hospitality LLC’s Motion to Compel Arbitration.

Defendants Ploenpidh Houston and Houston Hospitality LLC’s Motion to Have Cases Related is DENIED without prejudice. Defendants are ordered to file the Motion to Relate with Department 1, or the department designated by Department 1, once the stay is lifted.

Defendant Ploenpidh Houston’s Motion to Consolidate is TAKEN OFF CALENDAR pending resolution of the Motion to Compel Arbitration and Motion to Relate.

Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court