Case Number: BC510538    Hearing Date: July 17, 2014    Dept: 1

#4 – Shulman v. Horace Heidt Agency Company (BC 510 538); HH&M Enterprises, LLC v. RCI Builders, Inc., et al. (BC 524 592)

Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant RCI Builders, Inc. (RCI) moves this court to relate civil actions BC 510 538 and BC 524 592 because Judge Michael M. Johnson – the judicial officer presiding over the earlier-filed case – declined to relate the two matters on April 3, 2014. RCI makes this motion because, after Judge Johnson’s ruling, Defendant/Plaintiff HH&M Enterprises, LLC (HH&M) filed indemnification cross-claims in the BC 510 538 action that joined RCI and its subcontractors for damages arising from construction defects at issue in the BC 524 592 action.

RCI moves Department 1 for the relief it seeks on the authority of CRC 3.300(h)(1)(D) and LASC Local Rule 3.3(f)(3). In opposition, HH&M argues that these authorities are inapplicable to this motion because Judge Johnson affirmatively denied the relation of these two contested matters. This motion, consequently, is procedurally improper and untimely because it was not filed with Judge Johnson as a reconsideration motion, in accordance with the requirements of CCP § 1008.

However, this conclusion is not supported by any specific authority that obviates the application of the plain language of CRC 3.300(h)(1)(D): “If all the related cases have been filed in one superior court, the court, on notice to all parties, may order that the cases, including probate and family law cases, be related and may assign them to a single judge or department. In a superior court where there is a master calendar, the presiding judge may order the cases related. In a court in which cases are assigned to a single judge or department, cases may be ordered related as follows: ¶ (A) Where all the cases listed in the notice are unlimited civil cases, or where all the cases listed in the notice are limited civil cases, the judge who has the earliest filed case must determine whether the cases must be ordered related and assigned to his or her department; ¶ (B) Where the cases listed in the notice include both unlimited and limited civil cases, the judge who has the earliest filed unlimited civil case must determine whether the cases should be ordered related and assigned to his or her department; ¶ (C) Where the cases listed in the notice contain a probate or family law case, the presiding judge or a judge designated by the presiding judge must determine whether the cases should be ordered related and, if so, to which judge or department they should be assigned; ¶ (D) In the event that any of the cases listed in the notice are not ordered related under (A), (B), or (C), any party in any of the cases listed in the notice may file a motion to have the cases related. The motion must be filed with the presiding judge or the judge designated by the presiding judge…” CRC 3.300(h)(1)(A)(B)(C)(D) [Emphasis added]. The plain language of CRC 3.300(h)(1)(D), moreover, is understood to mean that, in the event the pertinent judge does not order related any of the cases listed in the Notice of Related Case, any party may file a motion with Department 1 to have the cases related. See LASC Local Rule 3.3(f)(3). Therefore, RCI’s motion to relate cases BC 510 538 and BC 524 592 is not procedurally untimely or improper.

RCI’s motion is, nonetheless, opposed as well on substantive grounds, viz., that cases BC 510 538 and BC 524 592 do not involve the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact, do not involve claims or damages to the same property, and will not require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges. The opposition also notes that, whereas the BC 524 592 case is set for trial on April 30, 2015, the BC 510 538 action is scheduled for an imminent September 29, 2014 jury trial. In reply, RCI highlights the now identical construction defect issues entailed by HH&M’s indemnification cross-claims in case BC 510 538 and the causes of action pled in case BC 524 592.

Cases like these are, nevertheless, 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. CRC 3.300(a).

Here, the BC 510 538 case is an action brought by a tenant against her apartment landlord, HH&M, for a number of claims amounting to the breach of quiet enjoyment, breach of implied warranty of habitability, negligent maintenance, and violations civil rights laws. The plaintiff tenant supports her claims with allegations of water and mold damage to her apartment, as well as discrimination against her for being a single woman with children. The BC 524 592 case, on the other hand, is a construction defect suit leveled against RCI and other subcontractors for problems in waterproofing, drainage, and plumbing in the building at issue in case BC 510 538.

While the recently filed cross-claims in the BC 510 538 action now arguably create for the two cases an overlap in parties and disputed property, the two matters still plainly involve different transactions, incidents, or events – along with different questions of law and fact. The two matters also would not obviously require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges since findings associated with HH&M’s new indemnification claims in case BC 510 538 may collaterally estop litigation of the same issues in case BC 524 592. Branson v. Sun-Diamond Growers (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 327, 346 (Collateral estoppel precludes a party from re-litigating issues litigated and decided in a prior proceeding.). The two matters, therefore, are not actually related.

Accordingly, the RCI motion is hereby DENIED.