Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 23STCV09730, Date: 2024-06-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV09730 Hearing Date: June 20, 2024 Dept: 1
23STCV09730 KYLA BURKE, et al. vs RWBP HIGHLAND, L.P.
Plaintiffs’ Motion for De Novo Review of Denials of
Notices of Related Cases Pursuant to CRC 3.300(H)(1)(D)
TENTATIVE RULING:
The motion is GRANTED.
Motion
for De Novo Review of Denials of Notices of Related Cases Pursuant to CRC
3.300(H)(1)(D) is GRANTED.
Department
1 relates 23STCV09730, 23STCV15879, 23STCV18263, 23STCV18297, 23STCV18303,
23STCV24159, 23STCV24226, and 23STCV30443.
The
Court orders 23STCV15879, 23STCV18263, 23STCV18297, 23STCV18303, 23STCV24159,
23STCV24226, and 23STCV30443 reassigned to Department 17 of the Stanley Mosk
Courthouse for all purposes.
All
hearings currently set in 23STCV15879, 23STCV18263, 23STCV18297, 23STCV18303,
23STCV24159, 23STCV24226, and 23STCV30443 are hereby advanced and vacated.
Counsel
for the moving Defendant to give notice.
Background of 23STCV09730 Burke v.
RWBP Highland
On May 1, 2023, Plaintiffs Kyle Burke and Prasad
Romijn filed this action against RWBP Highland, L.P. asserting causes of action
for: (1) Violations of Reporting Act; (2) Failure to Provide Receipt
For Tenant Screening— Cal. Civ. Code. § 50.6; (3) Negligence (Per Se via
ICRAA); (4) Unfair Business Practices, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200, et
seq.; (5) Unfair Business Practices, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200, et
Seq. (Cal Civ. Code § 1950.6); and (6) Negligence (Cal Civ. Code § 1950.6).
The
complaint alleges Plaintiffs are residents of the 1724 Highland Apartments
located at 1724 N. Highland Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90028, which is owned by
Defendant. Plaintiffs allege Defendant violated the Investigative Consumer
Reporting Agencies Act (“ICRAA”) by not providing Plaintiffs with a box to
check indicating their desire to receive a copy of any investigative consumer
report prepared for Defendant, failed to provide copies of the reports to
Plaintiffs, and failed to notify Plaintiffs in writing that a report would be
made. Defendant also allegedly failed to provide an itemized receipt for the
fee paid by the applicant to obtain the information. The complaint seeks
damages and injunctive relief.
On
February 1, 2024, Defendant filed a Notice of Related Case and Plaintiffs filed
a Notice of Related Case on February 5, 2024. On March 5, 2024, Judge Jon R.
Takasugi issued an order providing: “[t]he Court finds that the following
cases, 23STCV09730, 23STCV15879, 23STCV18263, 23STCV18297, 23STCV18303,
23STCV24159, 23STCV24226, and 23STCV30443, are not related within the meaning
of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a).”
On
June 3, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary adjudication related to the
first cause of action seeking determinations that Defendant violated the ICRAA
by obtaining investigative consumer report about them, by not providing
Plaintiffs with a means by which they could indicate on a written form, by
means of a box to check, that they wanted to receive a copy of any
investigative consumer report that was prepared about them, by not providing
Plaintiffs with the name and address of the investigative consumer reporting
agency that would prepare the reports and a summary of the provisions of Civil
Code § 1786.22, by not notifying Plaintiffs in writing that an investigative
consumer report would be made regarding each Plaintiffs’ character, general
reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living, and by obtaining
investigative consumer reports about them from RentGrow.
This action is currently pending in Department 17 of
the Stanley Mosk Courthouse.
Motion
On April 15, 2024, Defendant RWBP Highland filed the
instant motion seeking to relate 23STCV09730 with the following cases that were
listed in the Notices of Related Case:
-
Peter
Blanchette, Geneva Burkhardt, Taylor Ferraro, Brennan O’Boyle, Madeline Roche,
and Isaac Word v. RWBP Highland, L.P., Case No. 23STCV18263, which asserts the same six causes of action and
involves the same property: 1724 N. Highland Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90028;
-
Evan Barr v.
RWBP Hauser, L.P., Case No.
23STCV18303, which asserts the same six causes of action and involves a
different property: 630 Hauser Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90036;
-
Martin
Uecker and William Hooks v. RWBP Highland, L.P., Case No. 23STCV24159, which asserts the same six causes of action and
involves the same property: 1724 N. Highland Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90028;
-
Josh Hunter
v. RWBP Highland, L.P., Case No.
23STCV15879, which asserts the same six causes of action and involves the same
property: 1724 N. Highland Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90028;
-
Hector
Flores III and Robert Hayman v. RWBP Grace, L.P., Case No. 23STCV18297, which asserts the same six
causes of action and involves a different property: 1823 Grace Ave, Hollywood, CA 90028;
-
Chloe
Marshall and John Arguello v. RWBP Cloverdale, L.P., Case No. 23STCV24226, which asserts the same six
causes of action and involves a different property; and
-
Christopher
Connelly, Noura Chehade, and Rey Velasquez v. RWBP Highland, L.P. and RWBP
Yucca, L.P., et al., Case No.
23STCV30443, which asserts the same six causes of action and involves two
properties: 1724 N. Highland Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90028 and 6600 Yucca Street,
Los Angeles, CA 90028.
Opposition
In opposition, Plaintiffs state their belief that
the cases should be related in groups where the only related cases are those
involving the same property.
Plaintiffs’ limited opposition also improperly
discusses four other cases not listed in the original Notices of Related Case
and not at issue in Defendant’s motion. (Opp. at 1:18-23.) These cases are not
properly before Department 1 on the instant motion and the Corut disregards
Plaintiffs’ improper inclusion of 23STCV30433, 24STCV05689, 24STCV06420
and 24STCV05955 for the first time in opposition.
Reply
In reply, Defendants contend the opposition should
be disregarded as untimely, reiterates its argument that the cases should be
related, and notes that Plaintiffs’ counsel recently filed substantively
identical motions for summary adjudication in several of the cases.
Defendants responded to the opposition and the
merits and therefore are not prejudiced by the Court’s consideration thereof.
(See e.g. Carlton v. Quint (2000) 77
Cal.App.4th 690, 697.)
Request for Judicial Notice
Defendant request the Court take judicial notice of the docket and two orders
from an unrelated superior court case involving Plaintiffs’ counsel. The
request is DENIED as irrelevant. (People
ex rel. Lockyer v. Shamrock Foods Co. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 415, 422 n.2 (“any
matter to be judicially noticed must be relevant to a material issue.”); City of Bakersfield v. West Park Home Owners
Assn. & Friends (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 1199, 1210 (“the City relies on
similar financing plans having been validated by at least eight California
trial courts. The City requests this court to take judicial notice of these
trial court orders. However, trial court orders hold no precedential value.
Accordingly, we will neither rely upon, nor take judicial notice of, these
orders.”) (internal citation omitted).)
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 Finds All Cases Listed in the Motion are Related
As
noted above, on March 5, 2024, Judge Takasugi issued an order declining to
relate 23STCV09730, 23STCV15879, 23STCV18263, 23STCV18297, 23STCV18303,
23STCV24159, 23STCV24226, and 23STCV30443. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is properly 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).)
Defendant
contends the cases are related based upon the first, second, and fourth grounds
enumerated in Rule 3.300(a).
As
seen above, the cases do not involve the same parties as there are different
Plaintiffs in every case and many of the cases involve different entities.
(Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a)(1).) However, the Court agrees that all eight cases
arise from 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).)
As
noted herein, the Plaintiffs in each case assert the same six causes of action
based upon the same alleged violations of the ICRAA during the application
process to rent an apartment. While the physical properties and named entities
may be different, Defendant provides evidence that each of the RWBP entities
have the same principal, Scott McCarter, and utilize the same management
company, Redwood Urban Inc., of which McCarter is the President. (McCarter
Decl. ¶¶ 1-4.) In 23STCV09730 and 23STCV18303, the Plaintiffs filed largely
identical motions for summary adjudication, which rely upon rental applications
from the common management company, Redwood, and discovery responses verified
by Michelle Lane as the Regional Manager for different RWBP entities. As argued
by Defendant, “each case will turn upon a determination of whether the RWBP
entities’ practices (each managed by Redwood Urban) with respect to
investigative consumer reports complied with the ICRAA.” (Reply at 4:3-4.)
Based
upon the allegations at issue, as well as the common ownership and management
company for the Defendant entities, the cases are likely to require a
substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges.
(Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a)(4).) The cases have largely identical pleadings,
involve the same individuals managing the Defendants, and are likely to involve
the same discovery and the same motions addressing identical legal questions.
Judicial economy is best served by having a single judicial officer address the
identical ICRAA issues raised by each case. (Harris v. Rojas (2021) 66
Cal.App.5th 817, 820 (“The notice allows the trial court to promote efficiency,
to avoid duplicative effort, to combat judge-shopping, and to minimize the
prospect of conflicting results. The trial court system relies on this
mechanism to detect and to cure the problem of parallel litigation within its
jurisdiction.”).)
The
Court finds the cases are related within the meaning of California Rules of Court,
rule 3.300 and the motion is GRANTED.