Case Number: BC538187 Hearing Date: April 23, 2018 Dept: 32

laura shapiro, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MORAD BEN NEMAN., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC653531

Hearing Date: April 20, 2018

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO RECLASSIFY ACTION AS COMPLEX

BACKGROUND

This action is brought by approximately seventy-two individual Plaintiffs against eighteen Defendants related to a property located on East Pico Boulevard in Los Angeles. Plaintiffs allege claims arising out of the warranty of habitability, negligence, and various statutory violations.

On March 27, 2018, seventy-one Plaintiffs (all but Phil Galloni) filed an ex parte application to shorten time to hear their motion to reclassify this action as complex pursuant to CRC, Rule 3.400. The Court granted the application and set the motion to be heard on April 20, 2018.

DISCUSSION

Pursuant to CRC, Rule 3.400:

(a) Definition

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.

(b) Factors

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.

Here, Plaintiffs argue the Court should reclassify this matter as complex. Plaintiffs note that they are currently in the midst of responding to some 32,500 requests for discovery of one type or another, and that there is no realistic means of resolving such discovery without the additional judicial oversight that would be available if the case were designated as complex.

Defendants first argue the Court should reject this request because Plaintiffs have unduly delayed in bringing the request. Pursuant to LASC Rule 3.3(k)(6), “The policy of the court, consistent with California Rules of Court, rule 3.403, is that the issue of whether a case is complex should be decided as soon as feasible after a case is filed.” Defendants note that this suit was filed on March 07, 2017, and Plaintiffs made no effort, for essentially an entire year, to bring the instant motion.

Plaintiffs have not filed a reply to the opposition, and there is accordingly no argument from Plaintiffs as to the timeliness of the instant motion. The Court notes, however, that the local rules also state, “Nothing in this rule will be construed to alter the continuing power of a judge assigned to a case to decide at a later date that the case is complex or that a case previously declared to be complex is not.” (LASC Rule 3.3(k)(4).) Accordingly, notwithstanding the importance of resolving this issue early in a suit, the delay does not prevent the Court from now finding that the matter is complex.

Second, Defendants argue on the merits that this is not a complex case. Defendants argue that of the foregoing factors, only the second—the large number of witnesses or evidence—would apply. Defendants argue this is not enough to warrant deeming this matter complex. Defendants also argue Plaintiffs appear to be attempting to use the instant motion as a delaying tactic to simply delay responding to Defendants’ legitimate discovery requests, and note that deeming the matter complex would not solve what appear to be time management or understaffing issues on Plaintiffs’ counsel’s part.

As an initial matter, the Court notes that a case may be deemed complex even if it meets only one of the foregoing factors. (See, e.g., Thayer v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 819, 835 fn. 8 [“The coordinated actions with which we are here concerned are “complex” within the meaning of this rule only because of the large number of represented parties in related actions pending in different counties.”]; Ford Motor Warranty Cases (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 626, 641 [fact that cases did not raise difficult or novel legal issues did not mean they were not complex, in light of other factors].)

That said, the Court here agrees the matters should not be deemed complex. Although there are a significant number of parties, Plaintiffs argument ultimately hinges on nothing more than the apparently overwhelming amount of discovery requests with which they are dealing. Deeming the matter complex will not necessarily resolve this issue, to the extent the real problem is Plaintiffs’ counsel’s lack of resources to respond to the discovery requests. Moreover, Plaintiffs repeatedly indicate that they would like a discovery referee appointed in order to help oversee and manage the flow of discovery, but this could be accomplished without first reclassifying the matter as complex. (See CCP § 639.) Finally, while Plaintiffs try to suggest that there are a number of other cases pending between the same parties, no Court has deemed those matters related.

If plaintiffs need more time to respond to discovery, the court assumes that defendants would grant a reasonable extension for plaintiffs to respond. Plaintiffs chose to bring this action, and as such, plaintiffs are required to respond to reasonable discovery request. As stated previously, whether this case is complex or not, plaintiffs are still required to respond to discovery.

Accordingly, the Court is not inclined to find that this matter is complex. The motion is therefore DENIED.