Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 22STCV08759, Date: 2023-03-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV08759    Hearing Date: March 9, 2023    Dept: 1

22STCV08759           CLARE P. M. SASSOON, et al. vs AIR VENEZIA, LLC, et al.

Plaintiffs Clare P. M. Sassoon and Thomas W. Kielty’s Motion to Transfer

TENTATIVE RULING:  Plaintiffs’ Motion to Transfer Matter from Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Dept. 32 to Spring Street Courthouse, Dept. 14 is DENIED.

Background

On March 10, 2022, Plaintiffs Clare P. M. Sassoon and Thomas W. Kielty filed a complaint against Defendants Air Venezia, LLC, Aimco Venezia, LLC Aimco/Bethesda Holdings, Inc., Aimco Properties, L.P., Aimco-GP, Inc. and Apartment Investment and Management Company. On February 22, 2023, the court entered the parties’ stipulated order granting leave to file a Second Amended Complaint.

The SAC asserts causes of action for: (1) breach of express and implied contract; (2) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) tenant harassment; (4) intentional/negligent interference with contractual relationship; (5) declaratory relief; (6) negligence; and (7) Business & Professions Code section 17200. The SAC alleges Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into a Tenant Settlement Agreement (“TSA”) on August 11, 2009 after nearly 14 years of litigation. Plaintiffs allege the TSA provided a form lease agreement and granted Plaintiffs the option to automatically renew their lease for their lives. However, Defendants have allegedly failed to follow the automatic renewal requirement and instead required Plaintiffs to sign a new lease every year and have attempted to alter the terms of the TSA through the new leases. Plaintiffs allege Defendants initially approved Plaintiffs’ former roommate, but later accused Plaintiffs of breaching their agreements because the alleged roommate was actually a subleasee. Defendants also allegedly entered units under false pretenses to invade Plaintiffs’ privacy, refused to accept rent since April of 2022, failed to complete the application process for Plaintiffs’ new roommate, and refused to provide information regarding Defendants’ new residency requirements.

Motion

On February 9, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion seeking to transfer this action from Department 32 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse to Department 14 of the Spring Street Courthouse based upon the terms of the TSA.

Opposition

In opposition, Defendants argue the merits of Plaintiffs’ substantive claims, that the civil action was filed in response to Defendants’ service of a notice to perform or quit, and the dispute has no connection to the TSA.

Defendants’ opposition was filed on February 28, 2023, which was untimely based upon the March 9, 2023 hearing date. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b) (“All papers opposing a motion so noticed shall be filed with the court and a copy served on each party at least nine court days . . . before the hearing.”).) Plaintiffs’ responded to Defendants’ arguments and therefore were not prejudiced by the late filing.

Reply

In reply, Plaintiffs note the opposition was untimely, respond to Defendants’ arguments regarding the merits of the dispute, and argue the only question is whether Plaintiffs’ claims are “brought in connection with or arising out of their tenancy at, or departure from, Lincoln Place.’”

Discussion

Plaintiffs’ motion seeking to transfer this action from Department 32 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse to Judge Kenneth R. Freeman in Department 14 of the Spring Street Courthouse is based solely upon a provision of the Tenant Settlement Agreement between the parties. (Mot. at 4:13-5:9.) Specifically, section 7(a) of the TSA provided:

The Parties hereby agree and stipulate to the continuing jurisdiction of Complex Civil West to administer any disputes and that Honorable Judge Lichtman, or, if applicable, the successor in Department 322, shall retain jurisdiction over any disputes in connection with this Agreement and shall have full authority to decide disputes with regard to compliance with this Agreement. Such decisions and/or determinations shall be binding and non-appealable as to all Parties. Honorable Judge Carl J. West, or, if applicable, the successor in Department 311, shall have jurisdiction over any new claims that involve or relate to similar factual and/or legal issues as those in the Litigation, including any and all claims brought by former tenants in connection with or arising out of their tenancy at, or departure from, Lincoln Place, or, which are in connection with development of Lincoln Place.

(Kielty Decl. Ex. A, at 17.) Plaintiffs contend to Judge Freeman in Department 14 is the “successor in Department 311” within the meaning of the TSA. In opposition, Defendants argue “this is not a dispute in connection with the TSA and there is no basis for transfer of this matter to another court.” (Opp. at 8:13-14.) In reply, Plaintiffs argue their claims fall within the terms of the TSA and cite Civil Code section 1654 regarding the interpretation of uncertain contracts. (Reply at 4:14-18.)

Plaintiffs do not cite any legal authority in support of their contention that they may select the department or judicial officer assigned to subsequent litigation. Cases are randomly assigned within the Los Angeles Superior Court. (LASC Local 3.3(b) (“The clerk must take all reasonably appropriate steps, including a system of random use of case numbers, to ensure that neither any party nor any counsel will be able to anticipate a case assignment.”).) The instant matter was properly assigned to a department of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse under the applicable Local Rules.

Plaintiffs also do not cite any authority for the proposition that their motion is properly before Department 1. The Local Rules of the Los Angeles Superior Court generally dictate the types of motions heard in Department 1.

For example, Local Rule 2.3(b)(2) authorizes Department 1 to transfer civil cases “from one district to another” under certain specified circumstances. However, the Spring Street Courthouse and Stanley Mosk Courthouse are both within the Central District of the Los Angeles Superior Court. (LASC Local Rule 2.2(b).) Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion does not fall within the purview of Rule 2.3(b)(2).

Local Rule 3.3(f)(3) authorizes Department 1 to hear motions to relate cases pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(h)(1)(D). On March 11, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Related Case involving this action, SC096605 Lincoln Place Litigation Cases, and BC390164 Sassoon v. Aimco Venezia, which was consolidated with SC096605. On April 4, 2022, Judge Kenneth R. Freeman, the judicial officer presiding over the department to which Plaintiffs seek to reassign this case, issued an order finding SC096605 was not related to the instant case. Thus, Judge Freeman declined to reassign the instant case to his department, despite Plaintiffs’ Notice of Related Case expressly quoting the portion of the TSA at issue.

On June 8, 2008, Judge Lisa Hart Cole issued a minute order designating SC096605 as complex within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.400 et seq and on June 24, 2008 the case was assigned to Judge Carl J. West in Department 311 at the Central Civil West Courthouse, a complex department within the Los Angeles Superior Court. Judge Freeman presides over a complex department in the Los Angeles Superior Court. Department 1 is expressly not authorized to hear motions to relate that involve a complex case. (LASC Local Rule 3.3(f)(4); Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(h)(4).) Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion does not fall within Department 1’s purview under Local Rule 3.3.

Plaintiffs have not demonstrated a sufficient basis to transfer the action and the motion is DENIED.