Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 2STCV27559, Date: 2024-04-25 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 2STCV27559 Hearing Date: April 25, 2024 Dept: 1
2STCV27559 PONSEPOL, LLC vs L.E. WATERS CONSTRUCTION CO.
Plaintiff Ponsepol, LLC’s Motion to Relate Cases
TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is DENIED. Clerk to give notice.
Background of 22STCV27559 Ponsepol v. L.E. Water Construction
On August 24, 2022, Ponsepol, LLC filed 22STCV27559 against L.E. Water Construction arising out of a March 23, 2018 construction contract to replace stucco at real property located at 11111 W. Olympic Blvd. in Los Angeles. The First Amended Complaint, filed January 18, 2023, asserts causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of express warranty; (3) breach of implied warranty; and (4) negligence. Plaintiff alleges there were defects in the stucco work performed by Defendant, the parties entered into a contract addendum whereby Defendant would repair the stucco, but Defendant abandoned the project.
On March 9, 2023, Defendant filed a cross-complaint, as amended, against South County Construction Services, Inc., BK Plastering, Inc., B & K Plaster Corp., and B & K Plaster Corp. dba BK Plastering, Inc. The cross-complaint asserts causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) negligence; (3) express/contractual indemnity; (4) declaratory relief – duty to indemnify; (5) declaratory relief – duty to defend; (6) declaratory relief; and (7) equitable indemnity. The cross-complaint alleges the Cross-Defendant subcontractors must indemnify, defend, and hold harmless L.E. Water Construction and if, found liable, the harm to Ponsepol was due to Cross-Defendants’ negligence.
On February 28, 2024, South County Construction Services filed a cross-complaint asserting causes of action for: (1) express contractual indemnity; (2) equitable indemnity contribution; (3) apportionment; and (4) declaratory relief against unnamed MOES.
This case is currently pending in Department 50 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse with the next hearing set for May 24, 2024.
Background of 22STCV39898 Ponsepol v. L.E. Water Construction
On December 16, 2022, Ponsepol filed 22STCV39898 against L.E. Waters Construction Company asserting causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of express warranty; (3) breach of implied warranty; and (4) negligence. This case arises out of an August 9, 2018 contract for deck and path of travel work at 11111 W. Olympic Blvd. in Los Angeles. The complaint alleges L.E. Waters’ work suffered from significant defects and it attempted to hide a dangerous and unsound condition on the property.
This case is currently pending in Department 19 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse with a trial setting conference set for July 17, 2024.
On March 18, 2024, Plaintiff Ponsepol filed the instant motion seeking to relate 22STCV27559 and 22STCV39898.
On March 19, 2024 Defendant L.E. Waters Construction filed a joinder to the motion, rendering it unopposed.
Motion to Relate Cases
Standard
Pursuant to Los Angeles Superior Court Local Rule 3.3(f)(3), “[i]n the event that the judge designated under California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(h)(1)(A)(B)(C) to make the decision, does not order related any of the cases set forth in the Notice of Related Cases, any party may file a motion to have the cases related. Department 1 shall hear the motion, if the cases are all pending in the Central District or are pending in two or more different districts.” (See also Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(h)(1)(D).)
The Cases Shall Not Be Related a Second Time and Reassigned
On April 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Related Case involving 22STCV27559 and 22STCV39898. On June 30, 2023, Teresa Beaudet issued an order finding the cases related and reassigned 22STCV39898 to Department 50.
On June 27, 2023, Judge Beaudet issued an order stating “[a] Peremptory Challenge having been filed and accepted in related case 22STCV39898, this case and the related case 22STCV39898 are referred to Department 1 for review and reassignment purposes only.”
On June 28, 2023, Department 1 issued an order stating “[t]he court finds that interest of justice is not served by reassigning case number 22STCV27559 to a new Judicial Officer. Therefore, this court determines that cases 22STCV39898 and 22STCV27559 should no longer be related.”
The parties’ motion is captioned as a motion to relate and argues the two cases satisfy California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a). However, the parties’ motion more accurately seeks reconsideration of this Court’s June 28, 2023 order unrelating the cases and finding the “interest of justice is not served by reassigning case number 22STCV27559 to a new Judicial Officer.” There have been no material changes in the two cases since June 28, 2023, other than the filing of a cross-complaint for indemnity in 22STCV27559 against unnamed parties. The Court finds no basis to deviate from its prior order, entered nearly ten months ago.
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(h)(1)(A), “[w]here all the cases listed in the notice are unlimited 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.” Here, 22STCV27559 pending before Judge Beaudet in Department 50, who initially related the two cases. As the parties acknowledge, both cases cannot be assigned to Judge Beaudet due to the acceptance of a peremptory challenge in the later filed case. The judicial administration goals of the related case rules must yield to the parties’ right to file a peremptory challenge. (See e.g. Rothstein v. Superior Court (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 424, 431.) Moreover, the peremptory challenge statutes should not be used as a mechanism to effectively extend the time requirements for a peremptory challenge in the earlier filed case. (Ibid. n.3. See also The Home Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1025, 1032 (“section 170.6 is designed to prevent abuse by parties that merely seek to . . . obtain a more favorable judicial forum.”).)
While the parties contend there may be a duplication of effort in the parallel proceedings, both the litigants and the assigned judicial officers are capable of managing such issues. (Rothstein, supra, 3 Cal.App.5th at 432.)
The motion is DENIED. The cases shall remain as assigned by this Court on June 28, 2023.