Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 24STCV04347, Date: 2024-09-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV04347    Hearing Date: September 10, 2024    Dept: 61

TARA ATKINSON vs KROTONA APARTMENTS, et al.

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff Tara Atkinson and Defendants Krotona Apartments, Mayer Moizel, and Mayer Moizel Revocable Trust’s Joint Motion to Deem Matters Related is GRANTED.

Moving party to provide notice.

DISCUSSION

A pending civil case is related to another pending civil case, or to a civil case that was dismissed with or without prejudice, or to a civil case that was disposed of by judgment, if the cases:

(1) Involve the same parties and are based on the same or similar claims;

(2) Arise from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact;

(3) Involve claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the same property; or

(4) Are likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges.

(Cal. Rules of Court (CRC) Rule 3.300, subd. (a).)

The parties to the present action have filed a joint motion to deem this matter related to six other pending matters:

· Gent v. Mayer Moizel, et al., LASC Case No. 24STCV04379

· Dubroff v. Moizel, et al. LASC Case No. 24STCV04398

· Bleckman v. Moizel, et al., LASC Case No. 24STCV04348

· Ellis v. Moizel, et al. LASC Case No. 24STCV4349

· Feingold v. Moizel, et al., LASC Case No. 24STCV12826

· Jaffe v. Moizel, et al., LASC Case No. 24STCV13131

The present action was first-filed of the matters on February 22, 2024.

These cases, like the present, involve allegations of violations of the covenant of habitability owed by Defendants Krotona Apartments and Mayer Moizel, to tenants residing at two properties on 2122 and 2130 Vista Del Mar in Los Angeles. (Motion at p. 5.) The parties argue that the cases arise from the same transaction and would involve the substantial duplication of judicial resources if the cases are heard by different judges. (Motion at pp. 5–8.)

The parties present the complaints from this and the other matters. (Motion Exhs. A–G.) These matters indeed arise from substantially identical transactions or events, and trying them before separate courts risks substantial duplication of judicial resources.

The motion is therefore GRANTED.