Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 22STCV16061, Date: 2024-01-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV16061    Hearing Date: January 4, 2024    Dept: 1

22STCV16061           21326 VENTURA, LLC vs SUMMITRIDGE REALTY, LLC

Motion to Relate Cases

TENTATIVE RULING:  The Motion of Plaintiff in Case No. 22STCV20177, Garry Itkin to Relate Cases is DENIED.  Clerk shall give notice to all parties in all four cases.

Background of 22STCV16061 21326 Ventura v. Summitridge Realty

On May 13, 2022, Plaintiff 21326 Ventura, LLC filed 22STCV16061 against Defendant  Summitridge Realty, LLC for partition by sale of real property located at 21326 Ventura Boulevard, Woodland Hills, California 91364. The complaint alleges Plaintiff owns an 77.5% undivided interest of the Property and Defendant owns a 22.5% undivided interest of the Property as tenants in common. The complaint also seeks an accounting.

This case is currently pending in Department 61 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse with trial set for April 8, 2025.

Background of 22STCV20177 Itkin v. Greenfield, et al

On June 21, 2022, Plaintiff Garry Itkin filed 22STCV20177 against Defendants Jon Greenfield, Robert Greenfield, 21326 Ventura, LLC, and Summitridge Realty, LLC.

On December 21, 2022, Judge Gregory Keosian issued an order finding 22STCV16061 and 22STCV20177 related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a).

On March 15, 2023, Plaintiff Itkin filed the First Amended Complaint asserting causes of action for: (1) breach of written contract; (2) specific performance; and (3) declaratory relief and request for temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunction. The FAC alleged Defendant Jon Greenfield is the managing member of Defendant 21326 Ventura, LLC, which owns 77.5% of real property located at 21326 Ventura Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 91364 and Defendant Robert Greenfield is the managing member of Defendant Summitridge Realty, LLC, which owns the remaining interest in the property. The FAC alleged Defendant Jon Greenfield accepted Plaintiff’s offer to purchase the property via email on February 8, 2022 and the parties entered into a letter of intent on March 21, 2022. However, Defendants allegedly failed to comply with the parties’ agreement.

On July 11, 2023, the court sustained Defendants Jon Greenfield and 21326 Ventura, LLC’s demurrer to the FAC without leave to amend. Plaintiff filed an appeal of this order.

On November 30, 2023, the court granted Defendants Jon Greenfield and 21326 Ventura, LLC’s motion to expunge a lis pendens recorded on the property.

This case is currently pending in Department 61 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse with trial set for April 8, 2025.

Background of 23STCV20344 21326 Ventura v. Motorcars West, et al

On August 24, 2023, Plaintiff 21326 Ventura, LLC filed 23STCV20344 against Defendants Motorcars West, LLC, Gray Family II, LLC., Bennett Automotive Group, Inc., Harrison Gray aka Harry Gray, and Bennett Tony Schwartz aka Tony Schwartz asserting causes of action for: (1) breach of lease; and (2) breach of guaranty. The complaint alleges Defendant Motorcars West entered into a lease agreement on May 1, 2012 for real property located at 21326 Ventura Blvd., Los Angeles, California 91364, which included a guaranty by Gray Family II, LLC, Bennett Automotive Group, Inc., Harrison Gray, and Bennett Tony. The complaint alleges Defendants subleased the premises to Pure Care Solution Corporation and Garry Y. Itkin on November 25, 2019. After the sublease ended, Pure Care Solution and Itkin allegedly failed to vacate the premises and did not pay rent since the sublease expired.

On October 26, 2023, Motorcars West Gray Family II, Bennett Automotive Group, Gray, and Schwartz filed a cross-complaint against Pure Care Solution and Itkin asserting causes of action for: (1) indemnity; (2) contribution; (3) declaratory relief; and (4) breach of contract.

This case is currently pending in Department 62 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse with a case management conference set for February 6, 2024.

Background of 23VECV03841 21326 Ventura v. Pure Care Solution

On September 1, 2023, Plaintiff 21326 Ventura filed 23VECV03841 against Defendants Pure Care Solution and Garry Itkin for unlawful detainer. The complaint alleges Pure Care Solution and Itkin failed to vacate real property located at 21326 Ventura Blvd., Los Angeles, California 91364 when their sublease ended on April 30, 2022 and have not paid rent during the period of their holdover.

This case is currently pending in Department U of the Van Nuys Courthouse East with trial set for January 8, 2024.

Motion

On December 6, 2023, Garry Itkin filed the instant motion seeking to relate 23VECV03841 and 23STCV20344 with the two previously related cases, 22STCV16061 and 22STCV20177.

The motion is unopposed. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1005.)

Motion to Relate Cases

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 Cases at Issue

On November 20, 2023 and November 29, 2023, Itkin filed a Notice of Related Case in 22STCV16061. On November 30, 2023, Judge Gregory Keosian issued an order finding “22STCV16061 and 23VECV03841, are not related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a).” Thus, Itkin’s motion to relate is properly brought before 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).)

Itkin seeks to relate 23VECV03841 and 23STCV20344 with the previously related 22STCV16061 and 22STCV20177. Itkin contends the cases are related based upon second, third, and fourth grounds enumerated in Rule 3.300(a).

As Itkin acknowledges, (Mot. at 5:17-22), the cases do not involve the same parties. The cases also do not involve the same or substantially similar claims: 22STCV16061 involves claims of partition and accounting, 22STCV20177 involves claims of breach of a sales contract and specific performance, 23STCV20344 involves claims for breach of a lease and guaranty, and 23VECV03841 involves a claim for unlawful detainer. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a)(1).)

Cases 23VECV03841 and 23STCV20344 do not arise from the same 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 as each other or as the other two previously related cases. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a)(2).) Both 23VECV03841 and 23STCV20344 arise from the expiration of a sublease whereas 22STCV16061 arises from the desire to partition jointly owned real property and 22STCV20177 arises from an alleged breach of a purchase agreement. Additionally, 23VECV03841 and 23STCV20344 will not require the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact such that they should be related. The complaint and cross-complaint in 23STCV20344 will require determinations regarding the lease, guaranty, and sublease, the parties’ relative liability, if any, and potential damages for alleged breaches during the lease and the subsequent holdover. The unlawful detainer case involves limited issues regarding the sublessees’ present occupation of the premises. (Hong Sang Market, Inc. v. Peng (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 474, 490 (“An unlawful detainer action is a summary proceeding designed to adjudicate the right of immediate possession; the only claims that are cognizable in such a proceeding are those bearing directly on the immediate right of possession.”).) While there may be some overlap, it is not sufficient to warrant relating 23VECV03841 and 23STCV20344, either to each other or to the previously related cases.

Furthermore, while the cases each involve the same property, they do not all involve claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to that property. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a)(3).) The previously related cases, 22STCV16061 and 22STCV20177, involve claims of ownership and competing claims regarding the right to buy and sell the property. The claims in 23STCV20344 are entirely contractual and seek compensatory damages. Possession or title are not at issue in 23STCV20344. Only immediate possession is at issue in 23VECV03841 and claims to title generally cannot be litigated in an unlawful detainer proceeding. Given the summary nature of the unlawful detainer action in 23VECV03841, there is good cause not to relate this case with the previously related cases.

The cases are also not likely to require a substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a)(1).) In the motion, Itkin contends if 23STCV20344 and 23VECV03841 “are tried separately, this could result in double damages to the plaintiff or inconsistent rulings.” (Mot. at 6:7-10.) However, trial in 23VECV03841 is set for January 8, 2024 and will be completed before any questions of law or fact are determined in 23STCV20344. Because the unlawful detainer case will be resolved, there is no risk of inconsistent rulings or double damages. (See also Hong Sang, supra, 20 Cal.App.5th at 497 (“the lessor is not only precluded from recovering twice for the same items of damages but also may not renew a claim for back-due rent associated with a particular time period if that periodic claim was denied on the merits in the unlawful detainer action.”).) The expedited nature of the unlawful detainer action substantially limits the potential duplication of judicial resources.

The Court finds the cases are not related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a). Separately, there is good cause not to relate unlawful detainer action 23VECV03841 with 23STCV20344 or previously related 22STCV16061 and 22STCV20177. The limited similarities and issues in the cases do not warrant the further delay in resolution of the unlawful detainer action that would result from relating the cases. The motion is DENIED.