Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 21STCV13726, Date: 2024-02-01 Tentative Ruling

If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, please email
the clerk at SMCdept1@lacourt.org (and “cc” all other parties in the same
email) no later than 7:30 am on the day of the hearing, and please notify all
other parties in advance that you will not be appearing at the hearing.  Include the word "SUBMISSION" in
all caps in the subject line and include your name, contact information, the
case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you
submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing
party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motion, and the
Court may decide not to adopt the tentative ruling.

Case Number: 21STCV13726    Hearing Date: February 1, 2024    Dept: 1

21STCV13726           SKY WATER FIRE PROTECTION vs ZENON KESIK           

Defendant’s Motion for an Order to Relate Cases

TENTATIVE RULING:        Defendant Zenon Kesik’s Motion for an Order to Relate Cases is DENIED. The Court finds good cause not to relate to the two actions.  Counsel for Sky Water to give notice.

Background of 21STCV13726 Sky Water Fire Protection v. Zenon Kesik

On April 12, 2021, Plaintiff Sky Water Fire Protection filed this action against Zenon Kesik arising out of Defendant’s alleged failure to pay for construction services rendered by Plaintiff at 1704 W. Manchester Ave., Los Angeles, California, 90047. The complaint asserts causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) common count complaint for work, labor, services and materials; (3) open book account; and (4) accounts stated. Plaintiff alleges the parties entered into a contract on October 15, 2019 “under which, Plaintiff was to takeover the project from previous contractor, pre work inspection, testing for hydro of fire sprinklers.” (Compl. ¶ 8.)

On August 20, 2021, the court granted Defendant’s motion to reclassify this action as a limited civil case. The court overruled Defendant’s demurrer on November 2, 2021.

On June 26, 2023, the court dismissed the complaint after Plaintiff failed to appear at trial. The court vacated the dismissal on October 17, 2023.

This case is currently pending in Department 25 of the Spring Street Courthouse with trial set for February 26, 2024.

Background of 23STCV14637 W1Y7A0T4T vs Sky Water Fire Protection

On June 23, 2023, Plaintiff W1Y7A0T4T, Inc. filed 23STCV14637 against Sky Water Fire Protection, Inc. The complaint alleges Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a contract on October 15, 2019 whereby Defendant “was to take over a fire sprinkler project from a prior contractor and complete the following work: relocate the main riser, complete the base system with fire sprinkler heads, install underground piping, test the system, and obtain approval by the City.” (Comp. ¶ BC-1.) Plaintiff alleges Defendant failed to abide by the applicable laws, failed to perform the work in a workmanlike manner, damaged other parts of the property, failed to complete the work, and failed to obtain approval from the City. Plaintiff further alleges it had to spend substantial sums to redo the work performed.

On August 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Related Case involving 21STCV13726 and 23STCV14637.

On August 31, 2023, Sky Water Fire Protection filed a cross-complaint against Zenon Kesik and W1Y7A0T4T asserting causes of action for: (1) breach of written construction contract; (2) complaint for work, labor, services, and materials; (3) open book account; and (4) accounts stated. The cross-complaint asserts the same causes of action and is substantively identical to the complaint filed in 21STCV13726.

This case is currently pending in Department 76 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse with the case management conference set for March 14, 2024.

Standard

In the event that the pertinent judge under California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(h)(1) does not relate any of the cases set forth in a Notice of Related Case, Department 1 may relate the matters on noticed motion. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(h)(1)(D); LASC Local Rules, rule 3.3(f)(3).)

The Court Declines to Relate the Two Cases 

On August 28, 2023, Plaintiff W1Y7A0T4T filed a Notice of Related Case involving 21STCV13726 and 23STCV14637 in 23STCV14637. Plaintiff did not file the Notice in 21STCV13726 as required. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(d) (“The Notice of Related Case must be filed in all pending cases listed in the notice . . .”).) However, the cases involve the same parties and Sky Water Fire Protection was properly served with the Notice. The judicial officer in 23STCV14637 has not issued a ruling on the Notice. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(h)(1)(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.”).) Accordingly, the motion is properly brought in Department 1. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(h)(1)(D); LASC Local Rules, rule 3.3(f)(3).)

Cases are related when they (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. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a).)

As noted above, the cross-complaint filed in 23STCV14637 is substantively identical to the complaint 21STCV13726. However, W1Y7A0T4T, Inc. is not a party to  21STCV13726. Accordingly, the cases do not involve the same parties within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a)(1). The cases do 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. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a)(2).) The cases involve the same contract and the same services rendered. Sky Water filed a substantively identical pleading in both cases.  Accordingly, the cases would satisfy the requirements for relation within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a)(2).

In opposition, Sky Water argues 23STCV14637 is a sham because W1Y7A0T4T is not a party to the contract. (Opp. at 4:4-8, 4:23-5:2.) This merits-based argument is not properly before the Court on a motion to relate. Similarly, Sky Water’s argument that the parties’ dispute is a limited civil case that should not have been filed as an unlimited action in 23STCV14637, (Opp. at 4:10-21), is also not procedurally proper here.

However, the Court agrees with Sky Water that, despite the cases qualifying for relation under Rule 3.300, there is good cause not to relate the cases. (See Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(g) (permitting the consideration of whether there is good cause not to relate cases).) Relating the cases would result in transferring 21STCV13726 back to an unlimited civil courtroom contrary to the previously granted Walker motion. Relation would also substantially delay trial scheduled for February 26, 2024 for a case filed on April 12, 2021. There will not be a substantial duplication of judicial resources if the cases remain before different judges as the trial in 21STCV13726 should be completed well before any factual or legal determinations are made in 23STCV14637. The outcome of that trial is likely to significantly narrow, if not entirely resolve, the issues in 23STCV14637.

Based upon the procedural posture of both cases, the Court finds good cause not to relate the actions. The motion is DENIED.