BAMBADJAN BAMBA, ET AL. VS 5111-5117 BUFFALO AVENUE, LLC;, ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******6418 Hearing Date: February 7, 2022 Dept: 37

HEARING DATE: February 7, 2022

CASE NUMBER: *******6418

CASE NAME: Bambadjan Bamba, individually and as guardian ad litem for minor Theophilia Bamba, et al. v. 5111-5117 Buffalo Avenue, LLC, et al.

MOVING PARTIES: Plaintiffs, Bambadjan Bamba, individually and as guardian ad litem for minor Theophilia Bamba, an individual and Ganohon Ansansame, an individual

OPPOSING PARTIES: Defendants, 5111-5117 Buffalo Avenue, LLC and R. Scott Tucker & Associates, also known as RST & assoc., et al.

TRIAL DATE: January 10, 2023

PROOF OF SERVICE: OK

MOTION: Plaintiffs’ Motion for Trial Preference

OPPOSITION: None as of February 2, 2022

REPLY: No opposition filed.

TENTATIVE: Plaintiffs’ motion is granted. Plaintiffs are to give notice.

Background

This is a habitability action arising out of Plaintiffs, Bambadjan Bamba, individually and as Guardian Ad Litem for minor Theophilia Bamba, an individual and Ganohon Ansansame’s (“Plaintiffs”) residency at 5117 Buffalo Avenue and 5107 Buffalo Avenue in Sherman Oaks, California. (the “Premises”) Defendants, 5111-5117 Buffalo Avenue, LLC and R. Scott Tucker & Associates, also known as RST & assoc. (“Defendants”) allegedly owned, operated and managed the Premises. According to the Complaint, the Premises exhibited a variety of substandard conditions including water leaks, toxic mold, holes in the ceiling and pest infestations during Plaintiffs’ residency. Defendants were allegedly notified by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (“LA County DPH”) of these deficiencies on numerous occasions, including on July 21, 2020 and March 23, 2021. Plaintiffs were allegedly harmed by Defendants’ failure to remedy the substandard conditions at the Premises despite receiving such notice from LA County DPH.

Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) breach of implied warranty of habitability, (2) negligence, (3) nuisance, (4) breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment, (5) violations of Civil Code 1942.4.

Plaintiffs now move for trial preference. The motion is unopposed.

Discussion

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 36, subdivision (b), “A civil action to recover damages for wrongful death or personal injury shall be entitled to preference upon the motion of any party to the action who is under 14 years of age unless the court finds that the party does not have a substantial interest in the case as a whole.” (Code Civ. Proc., 36, subd. (a).) The court may also, in its discretion, grant a motion for preference that is supported by a showing that satisfies the court that the interests of justice will be served by granting the preference. (Id., 36, subd. (e).)

Plaintiffs contend that trial preference should be granted pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 36(b) because minor Plaintiff Theophilia Bamba (“Minor Plaintiff”) is under the age of 14, has suffered personal injuries as a result of Defendants’ actions and has a substantial interest in this case. (Motion, 2-5.) Plaintiffs submit a declaration from Plaintiff Bambadjan Bamba (“Bamba”) in support of this motion.

Bamba attests that he is the father and guardian ad litem of Minor Plaintiff, who is age 4. (Declaration of Bambajan Bamba (“Bamba Decl.”), 2.) Bamba, Plaintiff Ganohon Ansansame and Minor Plaintiff have resided at Apartment 2 of the Premises since January 2012. (Bamba Decl. 3.) According to Bamba, the Premises exhibited a variety of conditions during their residency, including, for example: “water damage; lack of sanitary plumbing; toxic mold in the floor, walls, ceilings and under sinks.” (Bamba Decl. 4.) According to Bamba, Minor Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer personal injuries “due to the uninhabitable conditions at the Premises,” including “rashes, skin problems, insect bites,” and “constant allergy and flu0like symptoms.” (Bamba Decl. 5.) Minor Plaintiff has been treated for her injuries at Pediatric Associates Medical Group, 4330 Fulton Ave, Sherman Oaks, California. (Id.)

Defendants did not file an opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion and do not otherwise challenge Plaintiffs’ contentions.

The court finds that Plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 36(b). Plaintiffs have demonstrated that Minor Plaintiff is under the age of 14 and that she has suffered personal injury as a result of Defendants’ alleged misconduct. Minor Plaintiff is a party to this action and thus has a substantial interest in this case as a whole. Thus, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 36, subdivision (b), trial preference is mandatory.

For these reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion is granted.

Conclusion

Plaintiffs’ motion is granted. Plaintiffs are to give notice.