Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Case Number: 23STCV08667, Date: 2024-12-10 Tentative Ruling

[Related to Lawrence Molbury, et al. v. Robert Babish, et al. 23STCV11717 and Lawrence Molbury, et al. v. Robert Babish, et al. 23STCV09241]

On April 19, 2023, Plaintiffs Lawrence Molbury and Rebecca Molbury (Plaintiffs) filed a Complaint against Defendants Michael Sinkov, Robert Babish, and S M Management LLC (Defendants) with four causes of action for (1) Harassment, (2) Extortion, (3) Negligence, and (4) Discrimination Against the Disabled. (The Sinkov Matter)

On April 26, 2023, Plaintiffs Lawrence Molbury and Rebecca Molbury (Plaintiffs) filed a Complaint against Defendants Domonique Cojone, Katja Seib, and Robert Babish (Defendants) with four causes of action for (1) Dereliction of Duty, (2) Harassment, (3) Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities, and (4) Inhabitability Violations. (The Cojone Matter)

On May 24, 2023, Plaintiffs Lawrence Molbury and Rebecca Molbury (Plaintiffs) filed a Complaint against Defendants Jake Ellwood Mallot and Robert Babish (Defendants) with five causes of action for (1) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, (2) Negligence, (3) Fraudulent Misrepresentation, (4) Unfair Business Practices, and (5) Conversion. (the Mallot Matter)

On September 6, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) to the Sinkov Matter which adding eight additional causes of action for: (5) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, (6) Breach of Contract, (7) Invasion of Privacy, (8) Violation of Fair Housing Act, (9) Violation of Tenant Protection Ordinances, (10) Fraud or Misrepresentation, (11) Abuse of Process or Malicious Prosecution, and (12) Unlawful Business Practices.

On September 7, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) to the Cojone Matter which added two more defendants, S M Management LLC and The Place LLC as well as adding nine additional causes of action for: (5) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, (6) Retaliatory Eviction, (7) Breach of Contract, (8) Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, (9) Constructive Eviction, (10) Fraud or Misrepresentation, (11) Private Nuisance, (12) Invasion of Privacy, and (13) Unjust Enrichment.

On September 7, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) in the Mallot matter which added two more defendants, S M Management LLC and The Place LLC as well as adding six additional causes of action for: (6) Breach of Contract, (7) Harassment, (8) Defamation, (9) Constructive Eviction, (10) Violation of Consumer Protection Laws, and (11) Retaliation.

On October 19, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction in the Sinkov Matter which the court DENIED.

On October 20, 2023, the court ordered the Complaint stricken in all three matters and granted Plaintiffs 30 days leave to file an amended complaint properly stating the causes of action.

On November 15, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (SAC) to the Sinkov Matter with six causes of action for: (1) Harassment, (2) Retaliation, (3) Discrimination Against the Disabled, (4) Breach of Contract, (5) Violation of the Fair Housing Act, (6) Intentional/Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, and (7) Deceitful Business Practices.

On November 16, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (SAC) to the Cojone Matter with six causes of action for: (1) Breach of the Covenant of Habitability, (2) Breach of Contract, (3) Negligence, (4) Harassment, (5) Unlawful Business Practices, and (6) Invasion of Privacy.

On November 17, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (SAC) in the Mallot Matter with eleven causes of action for: (1) Assault, (2) Conversion, (3) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, (4) Harassment, (5) Defamation, (6) Unfair Business Practices, (7) Breach of Contract, (8) Constructive Eviction, (9) Retaliation, (10) Invasion of Privacy, and (11) Disability Discrimination.

On January 5, 2024, Defendants filed demurrers to the SAC which the court ruled as follows:

In the Sinkov Matter, Demurrers to the First Cause of Action is OVERRULED as to Defendant The Place and SUSTAINED with leave to amend as to Defendants Michael Sinkox, Robert Babish, and S M Management, LLC; Demurrers to the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Cause of Action are SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

In the Cojone Matter, Demurrers to the Third Cause of Action is OVERRULED as to Defendant The Place and SUSTAINED with leave to amend as to Defendants Robert Babish, Dominique Cornejo, Katja Seib, and S M Management LLC; Demurrers to the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Causes of Action are SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

In the Mallot Matter, Demurrers to the Fourth Cause of Action is OVERRULED as to Defendant The Place and SUSTAINED with leave to amend as to Defendants Robert Babish, Jake Ellwood Mallot, and S M Management LLC; Demurrers to the First, Second, Third, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Causes of Action are SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

On April 24, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint (TAC) against Defendants Manhattan Homes LLC d.b.a. The Place, and SM Management LLC with five causes of action for: (1) Negligence/Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability, (2) Negligent Repair or Maintenance, (3) Negligent Misrepresentation, (4) Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment of Premises/Harassment, and (5) Unfair Business Practices.

On May 31, 2024, Defendants S M Management LLC and The Place, LLC (Moving Party) filed a Demurrer to the TAC which the court SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

On August 14, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration. On November 19, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Supplemental Declaration in support of their motion. Oppositions were due on or before November 25, 2024. As of December 5, 2024, the court has not received an oppositions.[1]

“(a) When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. The party making the application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.

(b) A party who originally made an application for an order which was refused in whole or in part, or granted conditionally or on terms, may make a subsequent application for the same order upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, in which case it shall be shown by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown. For a failure to comply with this subdivision, any order made on a subsequent application may be revoked or set aside on an ex parte motion.¿¿

(c) If a court at any time determines that there has been a change of law that warrants it to reconsider a prior order it entered, it may do so on its own motion and enter a different order.

(e)¿This section specifies the court’s jurisdiction with regard to applications for reconsideration of its orders and renewals of previous motions, and applies to all applications to reconsider any order of a judge or court, or for the renewal of a previous motion, whether the order deciding the previous matter or motion is interim or final. No application to reconsider any order or for the renewal of a previous motion may be considered by any judge or court unless made according to this section.”¿

Plaintiffs contend the court should reconsider its prior rulings sustaining the demurrers to the Complaint and First Amended Complaint.[2] Specifically, Plaintiffs seek leave to pursue causes of action against Defendants for ADA and FHA violations. Plaintiffs appear to additionally seek reconsideration of this court’s denial of accommodation requests from December 2023.

Plaintiffs’ motion is untimely. The Complaint was stricken on October 20, 2023. The Request for Accommodations was denied on October 17, 2023. A second request for accommodations was denied on December 21, 2023. A third request for accommodations was denied on February 26, 2024. The court ruled on demurrers on March 13, 2024 and Defendants served notice on March 18, 2024. Plaintiffs filed this motion on August 14, 2024 – almost one year later.

[1] There are additional filings for other motions that the court omits as irrelevant to the instant motion.

[2] The court has reviewed the documents submitted by Plaintiffs in support of this motion even though Plaintiffs’ filings well exceed the 15-page limit pursuant to CRC 3.1113. The court exercised its discretion pursuant to the Judicial Canons to ensure Plaintiffs received a full opportunity to be heard. (Cal. Code Jud. Ethics, canon 3B(8).) However, the court need not exercise this discretion in the future.