Case Number: SC121694 Hearing Date: April 21, 2014 Dept: P

TENTATIVE RULING – DEPT. P

APR. 21, 2014 CALENDAR No: 1

SC121694 — WADLAKS v. SARBONNE, et al.

SARBONNE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR ENTRY OF CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

Rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court defines a complex case as one that requires exceptional judicial management to avoid placing unnecessary burdens on the court or the litigants. Factors which support this designation include numerous pre-trial motions raising difficult or novel issues that will be time-consuming to resolve; management of a large number of witnesses or a substantial amount of documentary evidence; management of a large number of separately represented parties; coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts; and substantial post-judgment judicial supervision. Construction defect litigation typically involves a multitude of defendants who participated in the development and construction process. For this reason, such litigation is at least provisionally considered to be complex litigation. CRC 3.400(c)(2).

Here, Plaintiff, in support of the Sarbonne Defendants’ Motion for Entry of Case Management Order, asserts that this case is a complex case under CRC 3.400. Plaintiff’s Reply, at 3:2-5:6 (noting, inter alia, that this action currently involves 22 parties, the need for a CMO, multiple cross-complaints, heavy law and motion, and a jury trial estimate of 30-45 days). And, the Court concludes that this assertion is probably correct.

The Court questions, then, why, in the Civil Case Cover Sheet which accompanied the complaint on the day of filing, Plaintiff asserted that the matter was not complex. Civil Case Cover Sheet filed November 22, 2013, Item 2.
The Court will not rule on the motion until the appropriate bench officer (see below) makes a determination as to whether this action is “complex” under CRC 3.400.

At this morning’s hearing the Court will discuss with all counsel the manner in which the issue (viz., a determination of whether the case is properly deemed complex, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.403) is to be presented to the appropriate bench officer (the Assistant Supervising Judge for Complex Civil Litigation Courts, Hon. Emile Elias). In this regard, Plaintiff’s counsel should be aware of the existence of the LASC Complex Civil Case Questionnaire to be found at http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/Forms/pdf/LACIV211.pdf.

Motion is taken off-calendar without prejudice.

The Court notes that it appears that Plaintiff, on the one hand, and the Sarbonne Defendants, on the other, failed to make their best efforts to informally resolve the concerns expressed by the non-Sarbonne defendants (viz., the subcontractor defendants) as to the proposed CMO, prior to bringing the motion at bar. If the case is not moved to the Complex Civil Litigation Court, Plaintiff and the Sarbonne Defendants are to exercise their utmost efforts to informally resolve the other parties’ concerns with the CMO prior to bringing a motion for entry of the (revised) CMO.

SARBONNE DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT, SARBONNE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF COMPLAINT, and UNITED EXCAVATION DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT

These three motions are continued to July 14, 2014, to be heard with the demurrers and motions to strike currently set for hearing on that date.

The Court notes that although Plaintiff indicated in its Case Management Statement that it desired to advance the demurrers and motions to strike currently set for hearing on July 14, 2014, the Court concludes that the better option is the opposite – viz., to wait for a determination by Judge Elias or her designee as to whether this action is “complex” under CRC 3.400, and to continue the motions set for today to July pending that determination. In this regard, any delay in the determination of the three motions may have been avoided had Plaintiff – who named (in addition to doe defendants) over two dozen contractor and subcontractor defendants in its complaint and sought repair costs of over $7M therein – designated the action as complex in its Civil Case Cover Sheet.

OTHER MATTERS

Motion to be relieved as counsel, filed by attorney Mark Bronson (current counsel for Allied Design & Remodeling), being facially valid and being unopposed, is advanced from April 23, 2014 to this date and granted.
The Court will execute the proposed order lodged therewith; same will not be effective until filing of proof of service of the signed order on the client.