Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 23STCV27311, Date: 2024-01-18 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV27311 Hearing Date: January 18, 2024 Dept: 1
23STCV27311 TERESITA
MAHAYAG TEICHMANN vs FARIVAR GOUHARI, et al.
Teresita Teichmann’s Motion to Relate & Consolidate
Cases or in the Alternative Stay Unlawful Detainer and Small Claims Actions
TENTATIVE RULING: Teresita
Teichmann’s Motion to Relate & Consolidate or in the Alternative Stay
Unlawful Detainer and Small Claims Actions is DENIED in its entirety. counsel for Mag Estate Property in the
unlawful detainer action to give notice to all parties in all cases.
Background
of 23STCV27311 Teichmann v. Gouhari
On November 7, 2023, Plaintiff
Teresita Teichmann filed this action against Farivar Gouhari aka Daniel Gouhari
aka Danny Gouhari, Eric D. Beck, and Mag
Estate Property LLC arising out Plaintiff’s tenancy in real property located at
13160 Victory Blvd, Van Nuys, CA 91755. The complaint asserts causes of action
for: (1) tenant harassment (Civ. Code § 1940.2); (2) negligent
hiring, training, & supervision; (3) retaliation (Civ. Code § 1942.5); (4)
violation of L.A Tenant Anti-Harassment Ordinance (L.A.M.C § 45.33); (5)
Negligence; (6) violation of unfair competition law (Bus. & Prof. Code §
17200 et. seq.); and (7) breach of implied covenant of quiet enjoyment.
Plaintiff alleges she has resided at the rent-controlled
property for more than twenty-five years and Defendant Mag Estate Property acquired the property in December of 2021. The
complaint alleges Defendants have harassed Plaintiff and her family by: “(1)
pressuring them to move out of their 3-bedroom unit into a smaller 2- bedroom
unit or to vacate the Subject Property altogether; (2) subjecting Plaintiff and
her family to repeated and invasive inspections of their unit and abusing their
right of access to the unit; (3) stripping her of her parking space; (4) making
fraudulent allegations of breaches of non-existent lease terms; (5) demanding
payment for repairs to the unit that the Los Angeles Housing Department (LAHD)
had ordered Defendants to make; (6) filing a retaliatory small claims action in
bad faith for the cost of repairs Landlords were ordered to make by LAHD; (7)
and filing a retaliatory unlawful detainer action in bad faith that is
currently pending premised on false allegations.” (Compl. ¶ 2.)
On November 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Related
Case involving 23STCV27311, 23VESC00455 Mag Estate Property v. Teichmann,
and 23VEUD03997 Mag Estate Property v. Teichmann.
This case is currently pending in Department 39 of the
Stanley Mosk Courthouse.
Background
of 23VESC00455 Mag Estate Property v. Teichmann
On March 3, 2023, Mag Estate
Property filed the small claims action against Teresita Teichmann and Eric Teichman seeking to recover “costs to repair damages
caused to apartment unit by defendant.” (SC-100 ¶ 3.)
This action is currently pending
in Department P of the Van Nuys Courthouse East with trial set for February 1,
2024.
Background
of 23VEUD03997 Mag Estate Property v. Teichmann
On October 30, 2023, Mag Estate
Property filed the unlawful detainer action against Teresita Teichmann related
to real property located at 13160 Victory Blvd, #101, Van Nuys, CA 91755.
This case is currently pending in
Department H of the Van Nuys Courthouse East with trial set for January 31,
2024.
Requests
for Judicial Notice
Plaintiff requests the Court take
judicial notice of the complaints filed in 23STCV27311 and 23VESC00455. These
requests are GRANTED as to their existence, but not for the truth of the statements
made therein. (Evid. Code § 452(d).)
In reply, Plaintiff also requests the Court take judicial
notice of a Three day notice to perform or quit listing the property address as
“13160 Victory Blvd., Unit #104,” a small claims complaint filed in 23VESC02092,
and a printout from the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety entitled
“Requirements When Selling.” These requests are DENIED as irrelevant to the
issues presented in the motion. (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.”).)
The Court Does Not Consider the
Second, Untimely Filed Opposition
On January 11, 2024, Defendants Farivar Gouhari, Eric Beck,
and Mag Estate Property, LLC, through their counsel in the civil action, filed
an opposition to the motion.
Defendants’ opposition, filed four court days prior to the
hearing, is untimely. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b) (“All papers opposing a motion
so noticed shall be filed with the court and a copy served on each party at
least nine court days.”).) The Court declines to consider the late-filed,
second opposition. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.1300(d).)
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).)
Plaintiff’s Requests to Consolidate or
Stay are Not Properly Brought in Department 1
In her motion and reply, Plaintiff requests that the case
be consolidated, or alternatively, that the unlawful detainer case and small
claims case be stayed. (Mot. at 8:18-9:3, 9:23-11:11; Reply at 4:12-10:28.) Defendant
opposes these requests in opposition. (Opp. at 2:15-15:27.)
The types of matters heard by Department 1 are governed by
the Local Rules of the Los Angeles Superior Court and there is no basis in the
Local Rules for Department 1 to consolidate or stay pending cases.
Cases cannot be consolidated unless they are first related
and a motion for consolidation must not be noticed until after the cases have
been related. (Local 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, or if the cases were already
assigned to that department.”).) The judge assigned to the relevant case, not
Department 1, decides issues of consolidation. Plaintiff’s request for
consolidation is premature and not properly brought in Department 1.
Similarly, authority to stay a pending case is vested in
the judicial officers assigned thereto. Department 1 does not stay pending
cases.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s requests to consolidate or stay
the cases are issue are DENIED as procedurally improper.
There is No Basis for Department 1 to
Relate the Small Claims Case to Either Action
Plaintiff’s motion requests the Court relate small claims
case 23VESC00455 to limited jurisdiction unlawful detainer case 23VEUD03997 and unlimited jurisdiction case 23STCV27311.
Department 1 does not relate
small claims cases into limited or unlimited civil cases. Relation would
“thrust [the small claims] action into the morass of superior court litigation,
with its attendant delays and complexities, in direct contravention of the
Legislature's intent that small claims cases be resolved expeditiously and
inexpensively.” (Acuna v. Gunderson Chevrolet, Inc. (1993) 19
Cal.App.4th 1467, 1472.)
Additionally, as acknowledged by
Plaintiff, small claims cases may be transferred pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure section 116.390(a). (Mot. at 10:5-16; Reply at 6:26-9:13.) However, Section
116.390 expressly provides that the request must be made “by filing with the
small claims court in which the plaintiff commenced the action . . . a
declaration stating the facts concerning the defendant's action against the plaintiff
with a true copy of the complaint so filed by the defendant against the
plaintiff.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 116.390(b). See also Acuna, supra, 19
Cal.App.4th at 1472 (“the only circumstances under which a small claims case
may be transferred to another court are set forth in Code of Civil Procedure
section 116.390.”).) This rule announced in Acuna continues to apply,
despite the subsequent changes in the statute identified by Plaintiff in reply.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request
to relate small claims case 23VESC00455 to either limited
jurisdiction unlawful detainer case 23VEUD03997
or unlimited jurisdiction case 23STCV27311 is DENIED.
Court Declines to Relate 23STCV27311
and 23VEUD03997
On November 8, 2023, Plaintiff
Teichman filed a Notice of Related Case in 23STCV27311 involving 23VEUD03997
and 23VESC00455. Plaintiff did not file the Notice in
23VEUD03997 as required. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(d) (“The Notice of Related Case must be filed in
all pending cases listed in the notice and must be served on all parties in
those cases.”).) However, Mag Estate Property’s counsel, in all cases, have
been served with the instant motion and are not prejudiced by the filing error.
While the Notice was filed on
November 8, 2023, no ruling has been made thereon. Accordingly, the
motion to relate is properly brought before Department 1. (Cal. R. Ct., rule
3.300(h)(1)(D); LASC Local Rules, 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).)
Plaintiff
contends 23STCV27311 and 23VEUD03997 are related based upon every ground enumerated
in Rule 3.300(a). (Mot. at 8:4-17.)
The
cases do not involve the same parties as the civil case involves Farivar
Gouhari and Eric Beck, who are not parties to the unlawful detainer action.
(Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a).) The cases are also not based on the same or
similar claims and 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).) The unlawful detainer action is based upon a claim to possession,
whereas the civil action asserts numerous statutory and tort claims seeking
compensatory damages and specified injunctive relief. “An unlawful detainer
action is a summary proceeding designed to adjudicate the right of immediate
possession; the only claims that are cognizable in such a proceeding are those
bearing directly on the immediate right of possession. [Citation]
Cross-complaints and affirmative defenses are permissible only to the extent
that they would, if meritorious, preclude a court from removing a tenant from
the premises. (Hong Sang Market, Inc. v. Peng (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 474,
490–491.) Plaintiff’s civil claims involve significantly more, and different,
issues of fact and law than the unlawful detainer action. As Plaintiff
acknowledges, the civil complaint is based upon allegations spanning almost two
years, (Mot. at 9:2-3), and involves questions of liability and damages. While
there may be some overlap given the defenses raised by Plaintiff in the
unlawful detainer case, the Court finds they are insufficient to render the
cases related.
The
cases also do not involve claims against, title to, possession of, or damages
to the same property. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a)(3).) Possession is not directly
at issue in the unlimited civil action. Rather, the case primarily seeks
compensatory damages and injunctive relief related to Defendants’ alleged
unlawful conduct, including relief related to a parking spot, access to units,
rent collection, and pressuring to vacate. Finally, the cases are not likely to
require substantial a duplication of judicial resources if heard by different
judges. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a)(4).) An unlawful detainer proceeding
involves limited issues and is governed by specific statutory provisions, not
at issue in the civil case. As acknowledged by Plaintiff, there are procedural
mechanisms, other than relation, potentially available. (Reply at 2:15-24
citing Code Civ. Proc. § 1170.5.)
The Court finds the cases are not related within the
meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300.