Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 23STCV12769, Date: 2024-04-25 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV12769 Hearing Date: April 25, 2024 Dept: 1
23STCV12769 TIMOTHY KINMAN vs MANHATTAN LOFT, LLC
Defendant FPI Management, Inc.’s Motion to Deem Cases
Related
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendant FPI Management, Inc.’s Motion to Deem Cases Related is DENIED. Counsel for Plaintiffs to give notice.
Background
of 23STCV12769 Kinman v. Manhattan Loft
On June 5, 2023, Timothy Kinman
filed 23STCV12769 against the following Defendants:
The First Amended Complaint,
filed on October 26, 2023, asserts causes of action for: (1)
violation of Civil Code section 1942.4; (2) tortious breach of the warranty of
habitability; (3) private nuisance; (4) Business and Professions Code section
17200; (5) negligence; (6) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment; (7)
intentional infliction of emotional distress; (8) negligence per se; (9)
violation of Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA); (10) toxic environmental mold
tort; (11) violation of tenant anti-harassment ordinance; (12) California
Welfare and Institutions Code section 15600; and (13) false advertising.
The FAC alleges Kinman was a tenant at 215 W. 6th Street,
Unit 706. Los Angeles, California. 90013 beginning in March of 2022. The
property allegedly suffered from “cockroach infestation, extensive mold
contamination, offensive odors, dysfunctional plumbing systems, hot water
outages, dangerous electrical system, inoperable elevators, lack of air
conditioning, improper ventilation, inoperable kitchen appliances, deteriorated
and broken amenities, and deficient security.” (FAC ¶ 21.) Plaintiff’s unit
allegedly had mold “on the ceilings and walls of the bedroom and bathroom . . .
on the electrical outlets, on the backsplash, in the cabinets, and on the exhaust
pipes in the Property.” (FAC ¶ 26.) Plaintiff alleges Defendants were on notice
of these issues and failed to adequately remediate them. The FAC also alleges
FPI Management’s agents would laugh at Plaintiff’s physical injuries, make
homophobic comments about Plaintiff, would physically block Plaintiff from the
elevator, interfere with his access to his home, and block the entrance to the
building with security guards.
On September 13, 2023, Defendants SBDTLA 1 through 4 and
Greystar California, Inc. filed a Notice of Related Case involving: (1)
23STCV12769; (2) 23STCV13089 Gonzalez v. Manhattan Loft; (3) 23STCV13110
Ford v. Manhattan Loft; (4)
23STCV13677 Rios v. Manhattan Loft; (5) 23STCV18561 Hawkins v. Manhattan
Loft; (6) and 23STCV20980 Mendoza v. Manhattan Loft.
On September 25, 2023, Judge Jon R. Takasugi issued an
order stating: “[t]he Court finds that the following cases, 23STCV12769,
23STCV13110, 23STCV13089, 23STCV13677, 23STCV18561, and 23STCV20980, are not
related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a).”
On February 9, 2024, the court sustained FPI Management’s
demurrer to the second, sixth, eighth, ninth, tenth, and twelfth causes of
action with leave to amend. Plaintiff did not timely file an amended complaint
thereafter.
This case is currently pending in Department 17 of the
Stanley Mosk Courthouse with trial set for February 10, 2025.
Background
of 23STCV13110 Ford v. Manhattan Loft
On June 8, 2023, Marcellus Ford
filed 23STCV13110 against the same thirteen Defendants:
The First Amended Complaint,
filed December 26, 2023, asserts causes of action for: (1) violation
of Civil Code section 1942.4; (2) tortious breach of the warranty of
habitability; (3) private nuisance; (4) Business and Professions Code section
17200; (5) negligence; (6) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment; (7)
intentional infliction of emotional distress; (8) [stricken] (9) violation of
Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA); (10) violation of tenant anti-harassment
ordinance; (11) false advertising; (12) intentional influence to vacate; and (13)
retaliatory eviction.
The FAC alleges Ford was a tenant at 215 W. 6th Street,
Unit PH 14. Los Angeles, California. 90013 beginning in June of 2021. The
property allegedly suffered from “a. Cockroach infestation; b. Deteriorated and
worn walls and ceilings; c. Improper construction; d. Mold contamination; e.
Dysfunctional plumbing systems; f. Lack of water supply; g. Dysfunctional
electrical system; h. Lack of heating; i. Improper weatherproofing; j. Broken,
deficient, and dysfunctional amenities; k. Broken and dangerous elevators; l.
Unsanitary and unsafe common areas; and, m. Inadequate security. (FAC ¶ 25.) Plaintiff
alleges Defendants were on notice of these issues and failed to adequately
remediate them. Plaintiff’s unit was also allegedly damaged by a flood due to a
fire in a neighboring unit in June of 2022. The FAC also alleges that
Defendants attempted to coerce Plaintiff to vacate the premises by falsely
stating he was being evicted, after he complained regarding the conditions on
the property. Plaintiff further alleges he was prohibited from calling 911
while stuck in an elevator “otherwise an eviction would be ‘promptly filed.’”
(FAC ¶ 193.)
On January 22, 2024, the Defendants SBDTLA 1, LLC, SBDTLA
2, LLC, SBDTLA 3, LLC, and SBDTLA 4, LLC filed a cross-complaint against
Manhattan Loft, LLC and 1200 Management, LLC asserting causes of action for:
(1) express indemnity; (2) equitable indemnity; (3) breach of contract
regarding failure to defend and indemnify; (4) declaratory relief; and (5)
contribution and appointment. The cross-complaint alleges Manhattan Loft, LLC
and 1200 Management, LLC are the prior record owners and managers of the
property. The SBDTLA entities allege they are the successors in interest to Laguna
Point Acquisitions, which purchased the property from Manhattan Loft on
November 2, 2021.
On March 28, 2024, Manhattan Loft and 1200 Management filed
their First Amended Cross-Complaint against the SBDTLA entities. The FACC
asserts causes of action for: (1) total equitable indemnity; (2) comparative
negligence and contribution; (3) breach of contract; and (4) declaratory
relief.
This action is currently pending in Department 74 of the
Stanley Mosk Courthouse with the next hearing set for July 24, 2024.
Background
of 23STCV13677 Rios v. Manhattan Loft
On June 14, 2023, Plaintiff
Austin Rios filed 23STCV13677 against the same Defendants:
The Complaint asserts causes of
action for: (1) violation of Civil Code section 1942.4; (2) tortious breach
of the warranty of habitability; (3) private nuisance; (4) Business and
Professions Code section 17200; (5) negligence; (6) breach of the covenant of
quiet enjoyment; (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (8)
[violation of Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA); (9) violation of tenant
anti-harassment ordinance; (10) false advertising; and (11) withholding of
security deposit.
The Complaint alleges
Rios was a tenant at 215 W. 6th Street, Unit 1102. Los Angeles,
California 90013 beginning in 2021 and decided to move out due to the alleged
conditions. The property allegedly suffered from “cockroach infestations,
rodent droppings, inoperable air conditioner, water shut offs, the building did
not have operating hot water, electrical supply interruption, plumbing leaks,
leaking pipes, floor puddles, inoperable elevators, and ineffective security.”
(Compl. ¶ 47.) Plaintiff alleges Defendants were on notice of these issues and
failed to adequately remediate them. Plaintiff’s unit allegedly flooded on
September 28, 2022 due to an A/C unit repair issue. Plaintiff further alleges
Defendant unlawfully retained Plaintiff’s security based upon inaccurate
assertions of unpaid rent.
This action is currently pending
in Department 15 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse.
Background of 23STCV18561 Hawkins v. Manhattan
Loft
On August 7, 2023, Plaintiff Rodney Hawkins filed
23STCV18561 against the same Defendants:
The First Amended Complaint, filed December 18,
2023, asserts causes of action for: (1) violation of Civil Code section 1942.4;
(2) tortious breach of the warranty of habitability; (3) private nuisance; (4)
Business and Professions Code section 17200; (5) negligence; (6) breach of the
covenant of quiet enjoyment; (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress;
(8) [stricken] (9) violation of Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA); (10)
violation of tenant anti-harassment ordinance; and (11) false advertising.
The
FAC alleges Hawkins was a tenant at
215 W. 6th Street, Unit 808, Los Angeles, California 90013 beginning on June
15, 2021. The property allegedly suffered from: “a. Cockroach infestation; b.
Dysfunctional plumbing systems; c. Toxic mold contamination; d. Dysfunctional
electrical systems; e. Lack of heat and air conditioning; f. Improper
weatherproofing; g. Deteriorated flooring; h. Excessive accumulations of trash;
i. Amenities not provided as advertised; j. Dysfunctional and dangerous
elevators; k. Deficient security.” (FAC ¶ 25.) The FAC alleges Hawkins has mold
growth under his garbage disposal and a light out in the bedroom. (FAC ¶¶ 65,
66.) Plaintiff alleges Defendants were on notice of these issues and failed to
adequately remediate them.
On January 19, 2024, the Defendants SBDTLA 1, LLC, SBDTLA
2, LLC, SBDTLA 3, LLC, and SBDTLA 4, LLC filed a cross-complaint against
Manhattan Loft, LLC and 1200 Management, LLC asserting causes of action for:
(1) express indemnity; (2) equitable indemnity; (3) breach of contract
regarding failure to defend and indemnify; (4) declaratory relief; and (5)
contribution and appointment. The cross-complaint alleges Manhattan Loft, LLC
and 1200 Management, LLC are the prior record owners and managers of the
property. The SBDTLA entities allege they are the successors in interest to
Laguna Point Acquisitions, which purchased the property from Manhattan Loft on
November 2, 2021.
This case is currently pending in Department 61 of
the Stanley Mosk Courthouse with trial set for December 9, 2025.
Background of 23STCV19836 Navarrete
v. Manhattan Loft
On August 18, 2023, Plaintiff Stephanie Navarrete
filed 23STCV19836 against the same Defendants:
The Complaint asserts causes of action for: (1)
violation of Civil Code section 1942.4; (2) tortious breach of the warranty of
habitability; (3) private nuisance; (4) Business and Professions Code section
17200; (5) negligence; (6) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment; (7)
intentional infliction of emotional distress; (8) violation of Consumer Legal
Remedies Act (CLRA); (9) violation of tenant anti-harassment ordinance; and (10)
false advertising; (11) intentional influence to vacate.
The
Complaint alleges Navarrete was a
tenant at 215 W. 6th Street, Unit 214. Los Angeles, California. 90013 beginning
in 2021. The property allegedly suffered from: “cockroaches, limited hot water
supply, water shut offs, mold growth, burned outlet, broken heater, inoperable
air conditioner, deficient fire alarms, unclean cloudy water, unsanitary
laundry room, plumbing leaks, deficient fire protection systems, missing smoke
detectors, rodents, [and] broken elevators.” (Compl. ¶ 54.) The Complaint
alleges Navarrete’s unit had “mold growth on the corners of the walls and
ceilings of the bedroom, behind the air conditioner, and refrigerator” and the
unit lacked fire alarms. (Compl. ¶¶ 62, 63.) Plaintiff also alleges she was
locked out of her unit after missing one payment without any communication from
Defendants. Defendants were allegedly on notice of these issues and failed to
adequately remediate them.
On December 20, 2023, Judge Kevin C. Brazile issued
an order sustaining FPI Management’s demurrer to the CLRA claim with leave to
amend, but otherwise overruled the demurrer. Plaintiff did not amend the
complaint in response to the court’s order.
On December 21, 2023, the SBDTLA entities filed a
Notice of Related Case involving 23STCV19836,
23STCV20980, and 23STCV27511.
On February 6,
2024, Judge Brazile issued a minute order and separate ruling declining to
relate the cases. While Defendant states “the Court’s order once again
provided no discussion as to the finding” regarding the related case, (Mot.
6:18-19), Defendant solely cites the minute order, not the separate order
issued by Judge Brazile, finding “[t]hese cases pertain to the same property
and landlord, but they relate to habitability claims by other tenants. . . .
The Court will not relate the subject cases because the benefits of relation
are not apparent for these types of cases.”
This case is currently pending in Department 20 of
the Stanley Mosk Courthouse with trial set for July 27, 2026.
Background of 23STCV20980 Mendoza v. Manhattan Loft
On August 31, 2023, Plaintiff Alexander Mendoza
filed 23STCV20980 against the same Defendants:
The First Amended Complaint, filed on March 13,
2024, asserts causes of action for: (1) violation of Civil Code section 1942.4;
(2) tortious breach of the warranty of habitability; (3) private nuisance; (4)
Business and Professions Code section 17200; (5) negligence; (6) breach of the
covenant of quiet enjoyment; (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress;
(8) negligence per se; (9) violation of Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA); (10)
violation of tenant anti-harassment ordinance; and (11) false advertising; (12)
toxic environmental mold; (13) retaliatory eviction; (14) trespassing; and (15)
violation of California Civil Code § 1954.
The FAC alleges Mendoza was a tenant at
215 W. 6th Street, PH 5. Los Angeles, California. 90014 beginning on January 3,
2022 pursuant to a sublease. The property allegedly suffered from: cockroach
infestation, toxic mold contamination, dysfunctional plumbing systems,
inoperable electrical outlets, dysfunctional heating and air conditioning
system, deficient weatherproofing, improper ventilation, inoperable and
malfunctioning household appliances, deficient security, and dirty, inoperable
amenities.” (FAC ¶ 21.) Mendoza alleges Defendants refused all repairs sought
by Mendoza because he was under a sublease. Plaintiff also alleges their unit
had a major leak in the sink, water damage in the living area due to a leaking
drain on the patio, and inoperable electrical outlets. The FAC alleges
Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff by serving notices to quit based upon knowingly
false information and entered the unit without permission on April 25, 2022.
This
case is currently pending in Department 54 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse with
trial set for April 14, 2025.
Background of 23STCV27511 Mezulari v. Manhattan Loft
On November 8, 2023, Plaintiff Alex Mezulari filed
23STCV27551 against the same Defendants:
The First Amended Complaint, filed on March 13,
2024, asserts causes of action for: (1) violation of Civil Code section 1942.4;
(2) tortious breach of the warranty of habitability; (3) private nuisance; (4)
Business and Professions Code section 17200; (5) negligence; (6) breach of the
covenant of quiet enjoyment; (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress;
(8) intentional influence to vacate; (9) [stricken]; (10) violation of tenant
anti-harassment ordinance; and (11) false advertising.
The FAC alleges Mezulari was a tenant at 215 W. 6
Street, Apartment 1213, Los Angeles, California. 90014
beginning in 2021. The property allegedly suffered from “water shut offs,
limited hot water supply, lack of mosquito proof screens on all operable
windows, broken heater, inoperable air conditioner, limited lighting, damaged
bathroom and kitchen outlets, damaged appliances, deteriorated cabinets,
cracked kitchen floor, rodent droppings, leaking showerhead, broken elevators,
inoperable fire alarms, broken washer and dryers” and cockroaches. (FAC ¶ 21.) Mezulari
further alleges specific lights and outlets in the unit do not function
properly, there is mold under the appliances, the floors and appliances are
damaged, and the shower leaks. Defendants were allegedly on notice of these
issues and failed to adequately remediate them.
On April 17, 2024, the Defendants SBDTLA 1, LLC, SBDTLA 2,
LLC, SBDTLA 3, LLC, and SBDTLA 4, LLC filed a cross-complaint against Manhattan
Loft, LLC and 1200 Management, LLC asserting causes of action for: (1) express
indemnity; (2) equitable indemnity; (3) breach of contract regarding failure to
defend and indemnify; (4) declaratory relief; and (5) contribution and
appointment. The cross-complaint alleges Manhattan Loft, LLC and 1200
Management, LLC are the prior record owners and managers of the property. The
SBDTLA entities allege they are the successors in interest to Laguna Point
Acquisitions, which purchased the property from Manhattan Loft on November 2,
2021.
This case is currently pending in
Department 54 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse with trial set for June 2, 2025.
Motion
On March 15, 2024, Defendant FPI
Management filed the instant motion seeking to relate 23STCV12769, 23STCV13110,
23STCV13677, 23STCV18561, 23STCV19836, 23STCV20980, and 23STCV27511.
Opposition
In a joint opposition, Plaintiffs
argue the cases should not be consolidated and one trial judge cannot overrule
another.
Plaintiffs impermissibly rely upon a trial court
order in their opposition. (Opp. at 6.) The Court disregards this citation. (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); Aguirre v. Amscan Holdings, Inc. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1290, 1299 n.5 (“Rule 8.1115 of the California
Rules of Court prohibits the citation of unpublished opinions of California
state courts, with certain limited exceptions. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule
8.1115(a).) We shall disregard the unpublished superior court opinions cited
and relied upon by plaintiff.”).)
Reply
In reply, Defendant argues
Department 1 has the authority to relate the cases, the cases share similar
allegations and therefore actions arise from the same or substantially
identical transactions, happenings and events, and the cases involve similar
causes of action and therefore involve common questions of law.
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
Motion is Procedurally Proper
Plaintiffs
caption their opposition as one to a “motion to consolidate” and make various
arguments regarding consolidation, which are immaterial to Defendant’s motion.
(Opp. at 3:7-5:17; 6:13-20.) Defendant’s motion seeks to relate the seven cases
identified in the motion, a
prerequisite for later moving for consolidation. (LASC Local Rules, rule
3.3(g)(1) (“Cases may not be consolidated unless they are in the same
department. A motion to consolidate two or more cases may be noticed and heard
after the cases, initially filed in different departments, have been related
into a single department . . .”).) The motion does not seek consolidation,
Department 1 does not consolidate cases, and any arguments related to
consolidation are premature.
Plaintiffs also argue the motion is improper, citing
various authority standing for the general propositions that one trial judge
may not overrule another and a superior court’s authority to promulgate local
rules is constrained. (Opp. at 7:7-12:7.) While Plaintiffs’ counsel contends
the instant motion is “the greatest and most aggressive abuse the undersigned
has ever seen,” (Opp. at 12:1-2), Defendant’s motion is expressly authorized by
both the California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(h)(1)(D) and LASC
Local Rules, rule 3.3(f)(3). None of Plaintiffs’
authority addresses the long-standing provision of the California Rules of
Court applicable here. Defendant’s motion is properly made in Department 1 and
Plaintiffs’ arguments regarding the procedural propriety of the motion are unpersuasive.
The Court Declines to Relate the Cases
at Issue
As noted above, on September 25, 2023, Judge Takasugi
issued an order declining to relate 23STCV12769, 23STCV13110, 23STCV13089,
23STCV13677, 23STCV18561, and 23STCV20980. On February 6, 2024, Judge Brazile
issued an order declining to relate 23STCV19836, 23STCV20980, and 23STCV27511. 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 argues the cases are “inextricably intertwined .
. . involve similar factual and legal issues relating to the alleged unlawful
conditions of the same Subject Property. . . . contain verbatim allegations in
a substantial number of the paragraphs supporting the Complaints” and the cases
involve the same defendants and same counsel. (Mot. at 7:15-24.) Defendant also
argues the cases 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 and require substantial duplication of
judicial resources if heard by different judges. (Mot. at 7:25-9:25; Reply at 6:14-7:3.)
Defendant cites various commonalities between the complaints, which were
drafted by the same attorney and involve the same housing complex.
As seen above, the cases do not involve the same parties as
the Defendants are the only party common to each case and some cases include
cross-complaints against 1200 Management, LLC. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a)(1).)
The cases also 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).) While each Plaintiff resided in the same housing complex, each
case arises out of each plaintiff’s tenancy, their experiences within their
unit and the entire property, as well as their interactions with the
Defendants. The cases do not all involve the same causes of action or claims. In
23STCV12769, Kinman includes allegations of harassment based upon protected characteristics,
23STCV20980 includes a claim for trespass and involves a subtenancy, 23STCV13110
and 23STCV20980 involve claims of eviction, 23STCV13677 involves the
withholding of a security deposit, some cases involve claims of retaliation,
while others include cross-complaints that require determination regarding
comparative liability and interpretation of a purchase agreement. The
habitability issues, Defendants’ knowledge thereof, and each Plaintiff’s
remedies require different factual and legal determinations for each Plaintiff.
The limited similarities between the cases, primarily arising from Plaintiffs’ residency
in a common complex and shared counsel, do not render the cases related within
the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a)(2), nor do shared general
legal theories. Each case will be decided based upon the application of the law
to the facts specific to each plaintiff, each defendant, and each unit at
issue.
The cases are also not likely to require a substantial
duplication of judicial resources within the meaning of California Rules of
Court, rule 3.300(a)(4). Defendant anticipates the Defendants will file similar
motions for summary judgment and engage similar or common experts in each case.
Defendant also notes there will be similar legal arguments at the pleading
stage. However, these arguments would apply to most cases involving similar
legal theories drafted by the same counsel. Defendant’s representation
regarding future litigation strategy, and similar pretrial motions addressed to
similarly alleged pleadings is not sufficient to demonstrate a substantial
duplication of judicial resources. The individual issues of law and fact
predominate and the cases are not likely to result in a substantial duplication
of judicial resources within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule
3.300(a)(4).
The Court shall not relate the cases identified by Defendant
and the motion is DENIED.