Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 23STCV13323, Date: 2023-09-28 Tentative Ruling

If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, please email
the clerk at SMCdept1@lacourt.org (and “cc” all other parties in the same
email) no later than 7:30 am on the day of the hearing, and please notify all
other parties in advance that you will not be appearing at the hearing.  Include the word "SUBMISSION" in
all caps in the subject line and include your name, contact information, the
case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you
submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing
party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motion, and the
Court may decide not to adopt the tentative ruling.

Case Number: 23STCV13323    Hearing Date: September 28, 2023    Dept: 1

23STCV13323           BARRINGTON PLAZA TENANT ASSOCIATION vs DOUGLAS EMMETT, INC.

Plaintiff Barrington Plaza Tenant Association’s Unopposed Motion to Transfer Action to Santa Monica Courthouse

TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff’s Motion to Transfer action to Santa Monica Courthouse is GRANTED and 23STCV13323 is ordered reassigned to the Santa Monica Courthouse in the West District of the Los Angeles Superior Court.  Notice of case reassignment shall issue shortly.  Clerk to give notice.

On June 12, 2023, Plaintiff Barrigton Plaza Tenant Association filed this action against Defendants Douglas Emmett, Inc. and Barrington Pacific, LLC for declarator and injunctive relief. The complaint alleges Plaintiff is an unincorporated association of tenants living at the rent stabilized Barrington Plaza Apartments located at 11728, 11734 and 11740 Wilshire Boulevard in the Sawtelle neighborhood of Los Angeles. Plaintiffs allege Defendant served all tenants with eviction notices on May 8, 2023 without sufficient cause under the law and made contradictory representations to local and federal authorities regarding their plans for the building. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to stop the evictions and require Defendants to comply with the applicable provisions of the Los Angeles Municipal Code.

On August 15, 2023, Judge James C. Chalfant issued an order denying Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction. The minute order also provided the following instruction:

The court orders that the UD actions all be filed in the Santa Monica Courthouse where they can be coordinated to ease the burden on the court and parties. Landlord is directed to file related case notices with the UD actions, and the notices shall refer to the declaratory relief case and all other UD actions on file. Both sides are directed to coordinate with Department One to make sure that the instant case gets transferred to Santa Monica under LASC Rule 2.3(b)(2) so that the same judge may hear all the cases.

The accompanying court order similarly provided “BPTA may move to transfer the instant case to Santa Monica under LASC Rule 2.3(b)(2).”

Standard

The Local Rules of the Los Angeles Superior Court govern the assignment of cases between its districts and departments. (Code Civ. Proc. § 402.) LASC Local Rule 2.3(b)(2) authorizes Department 1 to transfer civil cases from one judicial district to another via a noticed motion on three enumerated grounds: (1) when the case was filed in an improper district; (2) for the convenience of witnesses; or (3) to promote the ends of justice. (LASC Local Rule 2.3(b)(2).)

The Parties Stipulated to a Transfer and a Transfer is Warranted

During the August 15, 2023 hearing, Judge Chalfant stated:

I asked Judge Court in Department One, I talked to her today, and she agreed with me that this case that is the dec relief case, she agreed with me, one, that the UD cases have to be filed in the Santa Monica courthouse. And she agreed with me that the Department 78 case should be transferred to the Santa Monica courthouse. And that the cases should all be in front of the same judge in Santa Monica, and that that's going to happen. So I guess what I should do, Mr. Gibson, I didn’t think you were intending to file your UD cases anywhere but Santa Monica, but I’m going to order you to file them there. And then you need to -- when I say you, I mean both sides need to coordinate with department one to make sure that the Department 78 case gets transferred to Santa Monica so that the same judge will hear all of the cases. That’s what I want to happen. That’s what Judge Gordon [sic] wants to happen, so you just have to make sure that it doesn’t fall through the cracks.”

(Campbell Decl. Ex. C at 20:16-21:5.) Pursuant to this instruction, Plaintiff seeks to transfer this action from Department 78 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse in the Central District to the Santa Monica Courthouse in the West District. (LASC Local Rule 2.2(b).)

As noted above, the parties stipulated to the transfer. Pursuant to the filing rules enumerated in LASC Local Rules 2.3(a)(1)(A) and the filing court locator available on the court’s website, Plaintiff’s unlimited civil action could have been filed in the Santa Monica Courthouse in the West District. Accordingly, the parties are seeking a transfer to a proper district under the Local Rules. Additionally, the Court agrees with the parties that the convenience of witnesses and ends of justice warrant a transfer to the West District, where the property is located and where the unlawful detainer actions involving the property will be filed.

Based upon the information provided and the stipulation of the parties, the unopposed motion is GRANTED.