Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 23STCV12943, Date: 2024-01-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV12943    Hearing Date: January 25, 2024    Dept: 1

23STCV12943           LUIS ALBERTO MARTINEZ vs ORKID PLAZA LLC

Defendant Orkid Plaza, LLC’s Motion to Relate Cases 23STCV12943; 23STCV12969; 23STCV12999; and 23STCV15505

TENTATIVE RULING: Motion to Relate Cases 23STCV12943; 23STCV12969; 23STCV12999; and 23STCV15505 is DENIED.  Counsel for Plaintiffs give notice to all parties in all four cases.

Background of 23STCV12943 Martinez v. Orkid Plaza

On June 7, 2023, Plaintiff Luis Alberto Martinez filed this action against Orkid Plaza, LLC asserting causes of action for: (1) violation of California Civil Code § 1942.4; (2) tortious breach of the warranty of habitability; (3) private nuisance; (4) Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq.; (5) negligence; (6) breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment; (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (8) negligence per se; (9) violation of Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code § 1750, et seq.; (10) California Health and Safety Code § 13007; and (11) violation of California Health and Safety Code § 17975.

The complaint alleged Plaintiff was “tenant of the residential property located at: 724 1/2 San Pedro Street, Los Angeles, California. 90014.” (Compl. ¶ 1.) Plaintiff was allegedly exposed to substandard conditions, including: “a. Cockroach infestation; b. Fire burning the Property and rendering it unsuitable for occupancy; c. Dysfunctional plumbing systems; cl. Unsanitary floors, walls, and ceilings in a state of disrepair; e. Rodent infestation; f. Mold contamination; g. Dysfunctional electrical system; h. Improper weatherproofing.” (Id. ¶ 25.) Additionally, the property allegedly suffered a fire on June 12, 2022, destroying Plaintiff’s belongings. (Id. ¶ 31.)

On October 19, 2023, Defendant filed a Notice of Related Case involving 22STCV12943, 23STCV12969 Cervantes v. Orkid Plaza, 23STCV12999 Arreola v. Orkid Plaza, and 23STCV15505 Chavez v. Orkid Plaza. The Notice indicated the cases were related based upon the first, second, and fourth grounds enumerated in Rule 3.300(a) without additional explanation. On November 14, 2023, Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki issued a minute order providing, in relevant part, “[t]he Court finds that the following cases, 23STCV12943, 23STCV12969, 23STCV12999, and [] 23STCV15505, are not related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a).”

This case is currently pending in Department 58 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse with trial set for October 13, 2025.

Background of 23STCV12969 Cervantes v. Orkid Plaza

On June 7, 2023, Plaintiff Fatima Cervantes filed 23STCV12969 against Orkid Plaza asserting causes of action for: (1) negligence; (2) Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq.; (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (4) negligence per se; and (5) California Health and Safety Code § 13007.

The complaint alleged a tenant of the residential property located at: 724 1/2 San Pedro Street, Unit A. Los Angeles, California. 90014 from 2000 through February of 2020. (Compl. ¶ 1.) Plaintiff Cervantes’ parents allegedly continued to reside at the property and Plaintiff Cervantes’ personal property was destroyed by a fire on June 12, 2022.

This case is currently pending in Department 24 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse with trial set for April 28, 2025.

Background of 23STCV12999 Arreola v. Orkid Plaza

On June 7, 2023, Plaintiffs Jorge Arreola and Ivonne Garcia filed 23STCV12999 against Orkid Plaza asserting causes of action for: (1) violation of California Civil Code § 1942.4; (2) tortious breach of the warranty of habitability; (3) private nuisance; (4) Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq.; (5) negligence; (6) breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment; (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (8) negligence per se; (9) violation of Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code § 1750, et seq.; (10) California Health and Safety Code § 13007; and (11) violation of California Health and Safety Code § 17975.

The complaint alleged Plaintiffs “were tenants of the residential property located at: 724 San Pedro Street, Unit D. Los Angeles, California. 90014.” (Compl. ¶ 1.) Plaintiffs were allegedly exposed to substandard conditions, including: “a. Cockroach infestation; b. Fire burning the Property and rendering it unsuitable for occupancy; c. Dysfunctional plumbing systems; cl. Inoperable heating system; e. Improper weatherproofing.” (Id. ¶ 24.) Additionally, the property allegedly suffered a fire on June 12, 2022, destroying Plaintiffs’ belongings. (Id. ¶ 29.)

This case is currently pending in Department 16 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse with a case management conference set for April 10, 2024.

Background of 23STCV15505 Chavez v. Orkid Plaza

On July 3, 2023, Plaintiffs Eloina Mendez Chavez and Adan Ivan Chavez filed 23STCV15505 against Orkid Plaza asserting causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of warranty of habitability; and (3) wrongful eviction. The complaint alleged Plaintiffs were “tenants of the residential property located at: 726 1/2 S. San Pedro, Los Angeles, California. 90014.” (Compl. ¶ 1.) Plaintiffs were allegedly exposed to substandard conditions, including: “a. Broken window ledge; b. Rodent infestation; c. Missing window screens; d. Lack of electricity; e. Plumbing issues; f. Dampness in rooms;  g. Violations issued by City of Los Angeles Code Enforcement Department for failure to bring the Property to liv[]able conditions; h. Defective receptacle outlets; i. Plaster/drywall defective/deteriorated; j. Lack of proper heating; and k. Insect/vermin and/or rodent infestation.” (Id. ¶ 13.) Plaintiffs allege Defendant refused to accept Plaintiffs’ rent payment on July 1, 2022 and had changed the locks on Plaintiffs’ door with Plaintiffs’ property remaining in the unit. Plaintiffs allege the property was burglarized on December 26, 2022 and when they were allowed to enter the property on December 27, 2022, Plaintiffs noticed “someone had tried to set fire to the inside of the Property.” (Id. ¶ 21.)

This case is currently pending in Department 54 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse with trial set for February 24, 2025.

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

In opposition, Plaintiffs make various arguments regarding consolidation, which are immaterial to Defendant’s motion. (Opp. at 2:19-6:2.) As noted by Defendant, (Mot. at 7:12-13), the motion seeks to relate the four cases at issue, 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, (Opp. at 6:4-7:18), and a superior court’s authority to promulgate local rules is constrained. (Opp. at 7:19-11:4.) While Plaintiffs’ counsel contends the instant motion is “the greatest and most aggressive abuse the undersigned has ever seen,” (Opp. at 10:24-25), 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

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).)

As seen above, the cases do not involve the same parties as Defendant is the only party common to each case. (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).) Defendant notes the cases all involve the same fire incident, (Mot. at 6:22-27), which is not sufficient to render the cases related. Each case arises out of each plaintiff’s tenancy, with the Plaintiff’s alleging different harm from the fire at issue. Plaintiff Cervantes in 23STCV12969 alleges she had largely moved out of the unit her parents rented at the property, but her belongings were damaged in the fire. Plaintiffs in 23STCV15505 allege they were wrongfully evicted after the fire. Additionally, the personal property at issue as well as the extent of damage is unique to each Plaintiff. Furthermore, as Defendant acknowledges, “the specific habitability issues may differ from unit to unit.” (Id. at 6:24.) The habitability issues and Defendant’s knowledge thereof require different factual and legal determinations for each unit. The limited similarities between the cases do not render them related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a)(2).

Defendant contends “[a]ll Actions involve damages to their residential rental property as a result of the fire that occurred on June 12, 2022.” (Mot. at 7:1-3.) However, the property damage at issue relates to each Plaintiff’s personal property, not the real property owned by Defendant. The cases do not involve claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the same property within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a)(3).

Finally, Defendant contends that it “plans to file motions for summary judgment on issues that are the exact same across the board, specifically as it relates to their negligence for having caused or contributed to the fire.” (Mot. at 7:4-9.) This representation regarding a future litigation strategy is not sufficient to render the cases related. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a)(4), cases may be related if they are likely to require a substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges. Based upon the allegations at issue in the four complaints, the potential duplication of judicial resources is not likely to be substantial. Issues unique to each Plaintiff and their tenancy in their individual units predominate.

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