This is a construction defect case by plaintiff Board of Trustees of California State University, the State of California (“Plaintiff”) involving construction of the Campus Village Housing Project, three multi-storey mixed-use buildings containing nearly 1,000 apartments for students and faculty at San Jose State University. Plaintiff alleges defects with the plumbing system.

Defendants Clark Construction Group, Inc., Clark Construction Group, LLC, Clark Construction Group California, L.P. (“Clark Construction”) and F.W. Spencer & Son, Inc. (“F.W. Spencer & Son”) (the “Moving Defendants”) move for complexity determination.

“A ‘complex case’ is an action that requires exceptional judicial management to avoid placing unnecessary burdens on the court or the litigants and to expedite the case, keep costs reasonable, and promote effective decision making by the court, the parties, and counsel.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.400(a).) “In deciding whether an action is a complex case under (a), the court must consider, among other things, whether the action is likely to involve: (1) Numerous pretrial motions raising difficult or novel legal issues that will be time-consuming to resolve; (2) Management of a large number of witnesses or a substantial amount of documentary evidence; (3) Management of a large number of separately represented parties; (4) Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court; or (5) Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision.”

“[A]n action is provisionally a complex case if it involves…[c]onstruction defect claims involving many parties or structures[.]” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.400(c)(2).)

Although this is a construction defect case, it is arguable whether it involves “many parties or structures.” As the Moving Defendants acknowledge, there are only six defendants: the architect Niles Bolton Associates, Inc., the engineer WSP Flack + Kurtz, the construction manager Jones Lang LaSalle, the general contractor Clark Construction, the plumbing subcontractor F.W. Spencer & Son, and the inspector Construction Testing Services. This is far less than the larger (or even typical) construction defect action in this department. As Plaintiff argues, there is only one property at issue: the Campus Village Housing Project. The Moving Defendants point out that the subject property consists of three separate buildings with different numbers of floors and water demands, and thus, there are really three “structures” involved. Plaintiff counters that there is really only one plumbing system at issue. At any rate, Rule 3.400(d) goes on to provide that “[n]othwithstanding (c), an action is not provisionally complex if the court has significant experience in resolving claims involving similar facts and the management of those claims has become routine.” This Court routinely moves cases out of the Complex Litigation Department when the number of parties is significantly reduced. Thus, the non-complex departments of this Court have ample experience in resolving simpler construction defect actions.

Regarding the rule 3.400(b) factors, the Moving Defendants do not demonstrate the action is likely to involve numerous pretrial motions raising difficult or novel legal issues that will be time-consuming to resolve. The Moving Defendants refer to the likelihood of dispositive motions on issues like the applicable statute of limitations, or addressing various factual questions that will require substantial additional discovery. However, these are not novel or difficult legal issues.

Regarding witnesses and documentary evidence, the Moving Defendants contend they will have to depose 10-15 personnel at San Jose State University and “several” former key personnel. The Moving Defendants contend that more than 606,000 documents have been deposited into the document depository, and it is anticipated that thousands more documents will be produced. The number of witnesses is not significant. As for documentary evidence, Plaintiff disputes that 606,000 documents have been produced, saying there are only 137,548 documents. At any rate, there is a Special Master in this case handling discovery, and the existence of a joint document depository tends to show the documentary evidence is currently manageable.

Regarding management of a large number of separately represented parties, there are only one plaintiff and six defendants represented by five firms. Arguably, this is not a “large number of separately represented parties.”

The case does not appear to involve related actions in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court for purposes of requiring coordination. Nor does the case appear to involve any issues regarding substantial post-judgment judicial supervision.

For all of these reasons, the Court finds that exceptional judicial management is not necessary for this case. The motion is DENIED.