Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 23STCV29996, Date: 2024-03-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV29996    Hearing Date: March 21, 2024    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

On December 7, 2023, a number of plaintiffs filed this action against a number of defendants, alleging causes of action for (1) “breach of contract/contract of quiet enjoyment & warranty of habitability,” (2) tortious breach of the implied warranty of habitability,

(3) negligence, (4) violation of Civil Code section 1942.4, (5) violation of unfair business practices, (6) tenant harassment, (7) violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act,

(8) private nuisance, and (9) retaliation.

            The Complaint alleges that “Plaintiffs are the resident tenants of the property that is the subject of this action, which is Unit 1, 3, 4, and 5 of the subject property located at 14917 Gagely Dr., La Mirada, CA 90638…” (Compl., ¶ 27.) “The Plaintiffs entered into lease agreements with Augustus C. Craig, Jr., (decedent) and subsequently with Robert Q. Bergstrom, as successor Trustee of the Augustus Craig 2018, Revocable Trust Created February 20, 2018…” (Compl., ¶ 33.) “[T]he leases were assigned to Defendant, STANLEY following a sale transaction on or about July 27, 2023.” (Compl., ¶ 34.)

            The Complaint further alleges that “[s]ometime in April 2023, Plaintiffs complained to Defendant, ROBERT, that the units have health and safety issues due to peeled paints, rotten floor tiles, vermin and roach infestation and thereby requested that Defendant fix the issues. Plaintiffs never got any response from Defendant, ROBERT.” (Compl., ¶ 35.) The Complaint alleges that “[o]n or about August 28, 2023…LANDIS and LANDIS INC started demolishing the exterior walls, the balcony in the building.” (Compl., ¶ 39.) “On or about September 09, 2023, the Defendant, LANDIS, upon on [sic] the instruction of the Defendant, JERVIS, demolished the garage walls, the exterior walls of the apartment, took out the woods and window screens and installed fiber glasses. The dust and fumes associated with this demolition and construction caused Plaintiffs severe medical issues including but not limited to headaches, itching, coughing, sneezing and insomnia.” (Compl., ¶ 41.)

            The Complaint alleges that “[o]n or about September 07, 2023, Plaintiffs made a report to the City of La Mirada…about the construction…” (Compl., ¶ 44.) The Complaint further alleges that “[o]n or about October 10, 2023, in retaliation against the Plaintiffs for complaints made by the Plaintiffs to the City of La Mirada, Defendants STANLEY, NANCY, JERVIS and DONALD served a 60 day notices to terminate tenancy from the subject property on the Plaintiffs.” (Compl., ¶ 47.)

Plaintiffs Million Seifu; Tereche Mengistue Gelaye; Seifu Engida Gebrehiwot; Betsinat Seifu (Minor) through Guardian Ad Litem Million Seifu; Nishan Seifu (Minor) through Guardian Ad Litem Million Seifu; Mekdes Teshome Deresu; Lulia Tesfaldet Haile (Minor) through Guardian Ad Litem Tesfaldet Haile Fiseha; Ayzia Tesfaldet Haile (Minor) through Guardian Ad Litem Tesfaldet Haile Fiseha; Simon Tesfaldet Haile (Minor) through Guardian Ad Litem Tesfaldet Haile Fiseha; Tesfaldet Haile Fiseha; Semhar Kiflezghi Eyasu; and Hirut Mengiste (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) now move the Court “to order cases now pending in Department W of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Southeast Judicial District, Norwalk Courthouse to be transferred and consolidated for all purposes to the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Department 50.” (Notice of Mot. at p. 2:11-15.) Plaintiffs’ notice of motion also states that “[t]he motion will be further based on Code of Civil Procedure §526 on the grounds that an injunction or stay of the unlawful detainer cases will preserves [sic] the status quo and avoid multiplicity of judicial proceedings.” (Notice of Mot. at p. 2:16-18.) Defendant Stanly Holdings, LLC (“Stanly”) opposes.

Request for Judicial Notice

The Court grants Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice.

Discussion

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1048, subdivision (a), “[w]hen actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.”

“Consolidation is not a matter of right; it rests solely within the sound discretion of the trial judge. . .” (Fisher v. Nash Bldg. Co. (1952) 113 Cal.App.2d 397, 402.) There are two types of consolidation under section 1048: “a consolidation for purposes of trial only, where the two actions remain otherwise separate; and a complete consolidation or consolidation for all purposes, where the two actions are merged into a single proceeding under one case number and result in only one verdict or set of findings and one judgment.” (Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1127, 1147.) “The purpose is to enhance trial court efficiency (i.e., to avoid unnecessary duplication of evidence and procedures); and to avoid the substantial danger of inconsistent adjudications (i.e., different results because tried before different juries, or a judge and jury, etc.).” (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civ. Proc. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2022) ¶ 12:340.)

In the “Conclusion” section of the motion, Plaintiffs assert that “the Court should…order a transfer of unlawful detainer case numbers, 23NWUD02662, 23NWUD02676, 23NWUD02675 and 23NWUD02667 to this Los Angeles County Superior Court and a complete consolidation of all cases.” (Mot. at p. 11:5-8, emphasis omitted.) It appears that Plaintiffs are requesting that the Court consolidate the foregoing cases with the instant action.

Plaintiffs indicate that on December 14, 2023, the following four unlawful detainer actions were filed: (1) Stanly Holdings, LLC v. Million Seifu, et al., Case No. 23NWUD02662; (2) Stanly Holdings, LLC v. Hirut Megiste, et al., Case No. 23NWUD02676; (3) Stanly Holdings, LLC v. Tereche Gelaye, et al., Case No. 23NWUD02675; and (4) Stanly Holdings, LLC v. Tesfaldet Haile, et al., Case No. 23NWUD02667. (Plaintiffs’ RJN, Exs. A-D.) These cases are referred to collectively herein as the “Unlawful Detainer Actions.”

 Plaintiffs assert that “Plaintiff’s affirmative defenses raised in the unlawful detainer cases and this case establishes that these cases involve predominating and significant common questions of law or fact which [sic] consolidation is appropriate to promote trial convenience and economy.” (Egbase Decl., ¶ 11.) Exhibit “E” to Plaintiffs’ Request for Judicial Notice contains an answer filed by defendants Million Seifu and Mekdes Deresu in Case No. 23NWUD02662, an answer filed by defendants Hirut Megiste & Seifu Gebrehiwot in Case No. 23NWUD02676, an answer filed by defendant Tereche Gelaye in Case No. 23NWUD02675, and an answer filed by defendants Tesfaldet Haile and Semhar Eyasu in Case No. 23NWUD02667. (Plaintiffs’ RJN, Ex. E.) The answers attached as Exhibit “E” to Plaintiffs’ Request for Judicial Notice each allege affirmative defenses including, inter alia, “Breach of Contract/Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment/Warranty of Habitability and Retaliatory Eviction,” “Violation of Tenant Protection Laws,” “Invasion of Privacy,” “Violation of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing,” and “Estoppel.” (Plaintiffs’ RJN, Ex. E.)

Plaintiffs argue that “[c]onsolidation is entirely appropriate here where the unlawful detainer cases and the instant case comprise of actions involving the same questions of law and fact, namely determining issues pertaining to Breach of Contract/Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment/Warranty of Habitability and Retaliatory Eviction, Violation of Tenant Protection Law, Invasion of Privacy, Violation of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing and Estoppel.” (Mot. at p. 7:14-19.)

As an initial matter, Stanly asserts in the opposition that the instant motion does not comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.350. This provision provides in part that “[a] notice of motion to consolidate must: (A) List all named parties in each case, the names of those who have appeared, and the names of their respective attorneys of record; (B) Contain the captions of all the cases sought to be consolidated, with the lowest numbered case shown first; and (C) Be filed in each case sought to be consolidated.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.350, subd. (a).) Here, Plaintiffs’ notice of motion does not appear to “[l]ist all named parties in each case, the names of those who have appeared, and the names of their respective attorneys of record,” or “[c]ontain the captions of all the cases sought to be consolidated, with the lowest numbered case shown first…” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350, subds. (a)(1)(A)-(B).) In addition, Plaintiffs do not appear to provide evidence that the notice of motion to consolidate was “filed in each case sought to be consolidated.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350, subd. (a)(1)(C).)

Stanly also asserts that “[c]onsolidation of unlawful detainer proceedings is rarely appropriate and should not be permitted in this case.” (Opp’n at p. 3:18-19.) Stanly cites to Childs v. Eltinge (1973) 29 Cal.App.3d 843, 852, where the Court of Appeal noted that “except perhaps by mutual consent of the parties, an unlawful detainer action may not generally be tried together with other causes.” Plaintiffs did not file any reply in support of the motion and thus do not address the Childs case.

Stanly also asserts that “[a]lthough sometimes consolidation is appropriate when an unlawful detainer proceeding and a civil action are simultaneously pending and both raise the same complex title issues, this is not the case here.” (Opp’n at p. 3:25-27.) Stanly cites to Martin-Bragg v. Moore (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 367, 385, where the Court of Appeal noted that “the trial court has the power to consolidate an unlawful detainer proceeding with a simultaneously pending action in which title to the property is in issue. That is because a successful claim of title by the tenant would defeat the landlord’s right to possession. When an unlawful detainer proceeding and an unlimited action concerning title to the property are simultaneously pending, the trial court in which the unlimited action is pending may stay the unlawful detainer action until the issue of title is resolved in the unlimited action, or it may consolidate the actions.” (Internal citation omitted.) Here, Plaintiffs do not appear to assert that the instant action involves questions of title to the subject property.

The Martin-Bragg Court also noted that “[i]n unlawful detainer proceedings, ordinarily the only triable issue is the right to possession of the disputed premises, along with incidental damages resulting from the unlawful detention.” (Martin-Bragg v. Moore, supra, 219 Cal.App.4th at p. 385.) Stanly asserts that “[h]ere, the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated their claims would have any impact as to the ultimate issue of claim to possession of the Subject Premises.” (Opp’n at p. 4:21-22.) Plaintiffs did not file any reply in support of the motion and thus do not dispute this point.

In light of the foregoing, the Court does not find that Plaintiffs have demonstrated good cause to consolidate the instant action with the Unlawful Detainer Actions.

Plaintiffs also assert in the motion that “alternatively, preliminary injunction [sic] to enjoin or stay the unlawful detainer [sic] is appropriate under CCP § 526(b) and Civil Code        § 3423(a).” (Mot. at p. 9:8-9.) The Court notes, as it did at the hearing on the ex parte application to shorten time regarding this motion, that the UD cases already have been stayed when they were related to this case. This stay is consistent with the requirements of both Civil Code section 3423, subdivision (a) and Code of Civil Procedure section 526, subdivision (b). Civil Code section 3423, subdivision (a) provides that “[a]n injunction may not be granted: (a) To stay a judicial proceeding pending at the commencement of the action in which the injunction is demanded, unless this restraint is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of proceedings.” Code of Civil Procedure section 526, subdivision (b) provides in part that “[a]n injunction cannot be granted in the following cases: (1) To stay a judicial proceeding pending at the commencement of the action in which the injunction is demanded, unless the restraint is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of proceedings.” (Code Civ. Proc., §526, subd. (b)(1).) Here, there will be a multiplicity of proceedings because of the claims that the UD cases were brought in retaliation for the report by Plaintiffs to the City of La Mirada about the construction problems alleged to have been caused by Defendants.

In light of the foregoing, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ alternative request for “an injunction or stay of unlawful detainer proceedings” as moot since the Court has already stayed the UD cases.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion in its entirety.   

Stanly is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

DATED:  March 21, 2024                             

________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court