Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 24STCV05464, Date: 2024-10-28 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: October 28, 2024

Case Name: Bitri, et al. v. Hoh, et al.

Case No.: 24STCV04729

Matter: Motion for Trial Preference

Moving Party: All Plaintiffs

Responding Party: Defendants Ki Hoh and Byung Hoh

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion is granted.

Moving parties to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly 

encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

This is a habitability matter.  On February 26, 2024, Plaintiffs Redjan Bitri, Enris Bitri, Ryan Bitri, Mateo Bitri, Enkeleda Ramaj, Nesti Bitri, and Ermira Bitri filed a Complaint against Defendants Ki Hoh and Byung Hoh.

Defendants answered on August 5, 2024. 

Plaintiffs now seek a trial preference under Code Civ. Proc. § 36(b).

Code Civ. Proc. § 36(b) states, “A civil action to recover damages for wrongful death or personal injury shall be entitled to preference upon the motion of any party to the action who is under 14 years of age unless the court finds that the party does not have a substantial interest in the case as a whole. A civil action subject to subdivision (a) shall be given preference over a case subject to this subdivision.”

Here, the three minor children, Enris Bitri, Ryan Bitri and Mateo Bitri, are under the age of fourteen and have a substantial interest as a whole in this matter as tenants of the subject premises, who were allegedly exposed to cockroaches, bed bugs, rodents, mold, water leaks, crumbling walls and ceilings, and deteriorated floors.  There is some evidence that they suffer from respiratory issues and skin problems.  Therefore, Plaintiffs are entitled to a trial preference in this matter under Code Civ. Proc. § 36(b).

Defendants argue that the “HOA” would be liable for some of the allegations and, therefore, a necessary party has not been added.

Code Civ. Proc. § 36(c)(1) states that the instant Motion should be “supported by a declaration of the moving party that all essential parties have been served with process or have appeared.”

Code Civ. Proc. § 389 provides, “A person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action shall be joined as a party in the action if (1) in his absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties or (2) he claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in his absence may (i) as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest or (ii) leave any of the persons already parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations by reason of his claimed interest. If he has not been so joined, the court shall order that he be made a party.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 389.)  Under Code of Civil Procedure section 389, “ ‘[a] person is an indispensable party [only] when the judgment to be rendered necessarily must affect his rights.’ ”  (Olszewski v. Scripps Health (2003) 30 Cal.4th 7908, 808-809.)  

Defendants’ argument fails because joint, successive, and concurrent tortfeasors are not typically necessary parties (Witkin, Cal. Proc. 6th Plead § 201 (2024)); there is no explanation why the result would be different here; the Complaint hardly mentions common areas; and Defendants have not filed any motion to file a cross-complaint.

The Motion for Trial Preference is granted.  The objections are overruled.  The trial date is set for February 25, 2024.

Moving parties to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.