Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 23CMCV00620, Date: 2023-08-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CMCV00620    Hearing Date: August 24, 2023    Dept: 1

23CMCV00620 LOUIS HOLLINGSWORTH vs BLACKSTONE GROUP

Plaintiff’s Motion to Request De Novo Review

TENTATIVE RULING:  The motion is denied.

Background of 23CMCV00620 Hollingsworth v. Blackstone Group

On May 2, 2023, Plaintiff Louis Hollingsworth sued Defendants Blackstone Group aka Blackstone Real Estate Partners, Starwood Capital Group, and Extended Stay America, Inc. asserting causes of action for: (1) violation of unfair competition law (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.; (2) violation of Health and Safety Code section 17958.3 and AB607; (3) violation of California Civil Code section 1941.1; (4) violation of Penal Code section 418; (5) violation of Civil Code section 789.3; and (6) emotional distress. The complaint alleges Plaintiff was a tenant at an Extended Stay America Hotel located at 401 E, Albertoni Street, Carson, CA 90746. Defendants allegedly falsely advertised the nightly rate for extended stays at the hotel, failed to provide locking mailboxes, and unlawfully locked Plaintiff out of the premises by deactivating his key card.

On June 14, 2023, Plaintiff Hollingsworth filed a Notice of Related Case involving 23CMCV00620 and unlawful detainer case 23CMUD00771 ESA Management v. Hollingsworth.  

On June 20, 2023, Judge Michael Shultz issued a detailed order finding the two cases were not related.

Background of 23CMUD00771 ESA Management v. Hollingsworth

On May 24, 2023, ESA Management, LLC filed an unlawful detainer action against Louis Hollingsworth based upon the failure to pay rent for real property located at 401 E. Albertoni St., Room 327, Carson, California, 90746.

Motion

On July 12, 2023, Hollingsworth filed the instant motion to request de novo review of the Notice of Related Case.

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

Motion to Relate Cases

Standard

Pursuant to Los Angeles Superior Court Local Rule 3.3(f)(3), “[i]n the event that the judge designated under California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(h)(1)(A)(B)(C) to make the decision, does not order related any of the cases set forth in the Notice of Related Cases, any party may file a motion to have the cases related. Department 1 shall hear the motion, if the cases are all pending in the Central District or are pending in two or more different districts. . . . The motion must be served on each party in every case listed in the Notice of Related Cases, with proof of service attached.” (See also Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(h)(1)(D).)

The Court Declines to Relate the Two Cases

As noted above, Judge Shultz issued an order declining to relate the two cases on June 20, 2023. Accordingly, Hollingsworth’s motion is properly brought before Department 1. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(h)(1)(D), LASC Local 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).)

In the June 14, 2023 Notice of Related Case, Hollingsworth indicated the cases were potentially related based upon every ground enumerated in Rule 3.300(a) without additional explanation. In the instant motion, Hollingsworth states he is dissatisfied with the Judge Shultz’s ruling and contends the cases will require an answer to the same question: “is a landlord entitled to possession of an ‘untenantable’ property via unlawful detainer for unpaid rents, if, statute (CA Civ. Code § 1942.4) prohibits collection of rents if landlord violates any of the provisions listed under CA Civ. Code § 1941.1, as in the instant case.” (Hollingsworth Decl. ¶ 2.)

The cases do not involve the same parties as Hollingsworth is the only party common to both actions. Additionally, the cases are not based on the same or similar claims. An unlawful detainer claim is not the same or similar to the statutory and tort claims asserted by Hollingsworth in the civil complaint. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a)(1).) The civil complaint seeks damages and an injunction against alleged unfair competition and therefore does not assert a claim against the same property or assert a right to title or continued possession of the same property. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a)(3).)

The cases do not 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)), and are not likely to require a substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a)(4).) The unlawful detainer action arises out of the alleged failure to pay rent whereas the unlimited civil action arises out of the named Defendants’ advertising practices and failure to provide adequate mailboxes. The limited question posed by Plaintiff regarding Civil Code section 1942.4 is insufficient to demonstrate there will be a substantial duplication of judicial resources or that the cases involve substantially identical questions of law or fact. “An unlawful detainer action is a summary proceeding ordinarily limited to resolution of the question of possession.” (Malkoskie v. Option One Mortgage Corp. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 968, 973.) Moreover, the precedence afforded unlawful detainer cases is likely to reduce any duplication of judicial resources. The limited issues raised in the unlawful detainer action do not warrant relation to Plaintiff’s unlimited civil case.

The Court finds the cases are not related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300 and the motion is DENIED.