Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 23STUD13055, Date: 2024-01-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STUD13055    Hearing Date: January 25, 2024    Dept: 1

23STUD13055           FAYE BOGARI, et al. vs JENNIFER MENDOZA

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Relate Cases [CRC 3.300(h)(1)]

TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiffs’ Motion to Relate Cases [CRC 3.300(h)(1)] is GRANTED.  The Court finds 23STUD13055, 23STUD13065, and 23STUD13071 are related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a). Cases 23STUD13065 and 23STUD13071 are ordered reassigned to Department 93 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse for all purposes. All hearings currently set in 23STUD13065 and 23STUD13071 are hereby advanced and vacated.  Counsel for Plaintiffs to give notice to all parties in all three cases.

Background of 23STUD13055 Bogari v. Mendoza

On October 4, 2023, Plaintiffs Faye Bogari, as Trustee of the Faye Bogari Trust dated August 9, 2002, and Manijeh Habibi filed this action against Jennifer Mendoza for unlawful detainer of real property located at 4857 W. 12th St Los Angeles, CA 90019, which is allegedly part of a single parcel containing three residential units. The complaint alleges Plaintiffs filed a notice of intent to withdraw units from rental housing use under the Ellis Act, complied with the Act’s requirements, and Defendant failed to vacate the property after the expiration of the 120 day notice.

On October 11, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Related Case involving 23STUD13055 and 23STUD13071 Bogari v. Quezada, and 23STUD13065 Bogari v. Thomas. On October 16, 2023, Judge Ian C. Fusselman issued a minute order stating, in relevant part, “[t]his Court finds that Case Numbers 23STUD13055, 23STUD13065 and 23STUD13071 should not be deemed related because they involve different addresses, different defendants and different notices to quit.”

On October 23, 2023, Defendant Mendoza filed a demurrer based upon the contention that the notice of intent to withdraw was not filed on behalf of the trust that owns the property. The court overruled the demurrer on November 14, 2023.

On November 20, 2023, Defendant filed an answer containing a general denial and asserting Plaintiffs “did not serve a legally-compliant notice either (1) in person or (2) by both posting the notice on the door and mailing said notice,” did not comply with the Ellis Act, served the notice to retaliate against Defendant, lack standing and a bona fide intent to take the rental unit out of the market, and violated the implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing, among other defenses.

On November 20, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to consolidate 23STUD13055, 23STUD13065 and 23STUD13071, which the court denied on December 19, 2023, noting the cases must be related in the same department before a party may notice a motion to consolidate, citing LASC Local Rules, rule 3.3(g)(1).

This case is currently pending in Department 93 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse.

Background of 23STUD13065 Bogari v. Thomas

On October 5, 2023, Plaintiffs Faye Bogari, as Trustee of the Faye Bogari Trust dated August 9, 2002, and Manijeh Habibi filed 23STUD13065 against Jeremy Thomas for unlawful detainer of real property located at 4859 W. 12th St Los Angeles, CA 90019, which is allegedly part of a single parcel containing three residential units. The complaint alleges Plaintiffs filed a notice of intent to withdraw units from rental housing use under the Ellis Act, complied with the Act’s requirements, and Defendant failed to vacate the property after the expiration of the 120 day notice.

On October 23, 2023, Defendant Thomas, who is represented by the same counsel as Defendant Mendoza in 23STUD13055, filed an identical demurrer based upon the contention that the notice of intent to withdraw was not filed on behalf of the trust that owns the property.

This case is currently pending in Department 91 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse.

Background of 23STUD13071 Bogari v. Quezada

On October 4, 2024, Plaintiffs Faye Bogari, as Trustee of the Faye Bogari Trust dated August 9, 2002, and Manijeh Habibi filed 23STUD13071 against Galo Quezada for unlawful detainer of real property located at 1185 S. Tremaine Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90019, which is allegedly part of a single parcel containing three residential units. The complaint alleges Plaintiffs filed a notice of intent to withdraw units from rental housing use under the Ellis Act, complied with the Act’s requirements, and Defendant failed to vacate the property after the expiration of the 120 day notice.

On October 23, 2023, Defendant Quezada, who is represented by the same counsel as Defendant Mendoza in 23STUD13055, filed an identical demurrer based upon the contention that the notice of intent to withdraw was not filed on behalf of the trust that owns the property.

This case is currently pending in Department 91 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse.

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

On October 16, 2023, Judge Ian C. Fusselman issued a minute order stating, in relevant part, “[t]his Court finds that Case Numbers 23STUD13055, 23STUD13065 and 23STUD13071 should not be deemed related because they involve different addresses, different defendants and different notices to quit.”

In opposition, Defendants inaccurately characterize Plaintiffs’ motion as a motion to consolidate and contend it is an improper renewal motion or motion for reconsideration under Code of Civil Procedure section 1008. (Opp. at 2:3-4, 2:21-27, 5:2-4.) Plaintiffs’ motion seeks to relate the three cases, 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, such as the introduction of character evidence, (Opp. at 3:25-4:24), are premature. Plaintiffs’ motion is expressly authorized by California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(h)(1)(D) and LASC Local Rules, rule 3.3(f)(3) and therefore is not constrained by the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1008. Plaintiffs’ motion is properly made in Department 1.

The Court Finds the Cases are Related

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).) Plaintiffs’ motion contends the cases are related based upon every ground enumerated in Rule 3.300(a). (Mot. at 7:2-8:27.)

As demonstrated above, while each case involves a claim for unlawful detainer based upon proceedings under the Ellis Act, they do not involve the same parties. Each case involves a different defendant. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a)(1).) The cases also do not involve claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the same property within the meaning of Rule 3.300(a)(3). Each case involves a different residential property, though situated on the same parcel, as acknowledged in each complaint.

Plaintiffs contend 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 because they submitted a single Ellis Act application to LAHD related to the three residential units. (Mot. at 7:18-24.) While the unlawful detainer claim arises from the same Ellis Act application, the Defendants contend the defenses asserted, and likely to be asserted, require factually specific inquiries related to retaliation, service of the notice to quit, and the amount of holdover damages, if any. (Opp. at 3:3-24.) The Court finds the cases arise out of substantially identical events: Plaintiffs’ Ellis Act application and asserted desire to remove tenants from the units on the property. Each case will require determinations regarding Plaintiffs’ compliance with the Ellis Act and related statutes and regulations, as demonstrated by Defendants’ identical demurrers filed after the initial ruling on the Notice of Related Case. The cases will also require determinations regarding Plaintiffs’ intent. Based upon the additional filings in the cases as well as the arguments asserted by the parties, the Court finds the cases are related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a)(2).

Plaintiffs also argue there will be a substantial duplication of judicial resources if the cases are heard by different judges. (Mot. at 8:9-27.) The Court agrees. After the initial ruling on the Notice of Related Case, each Defendant filed an identical demurrer regarding the same legal issue. If the cases continue before different judges, it appears likely they will be called upon to resolve identical factual and legal issues throughout the litigation. Plaintiffs’ cases are premised upon the same Notice of Intent to Withdraw Units from Rental Housing Use listing all three units, the units are allegedly subject to the same provisions of the Rent Stabilization Ordinance, the Relocation Assistance Payment Determination attached to each complaint indicates all three units were provided the same case number by the Los Angeles Housing Department, (Compls. Ex. G), and the relocation funds are held under the same escrow. (Id. Ex. H.) Furthermore, relating the three cases will reduce the potential for inconsistent rulings. (See 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 23STUD13055, 23STUD13065, and 23STUD13071 are related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a) and the motion is GRANTED.