This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 03/14/2020 at 01:03:05 (UTC).

MATHEW KREDELL ET AL VS 900 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET APARTMENTS

Case Summary

On 03/12/2018 MATHEW KREDELL filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against 900 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET APARTMENTS. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH, SAMANTHA JESSNER and DANIEL S. MURPHY. The case status is Other.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7514

  • Filing Date:

    03/12/2018

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

SAMANTHA JESSNER

DANIEL S. MURPHY

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

KREDELL MATHEW

MENDOZA CARISSA

Defendants and Respondents

900 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET APARTMENTS -

DOES 1 - 20

900 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREEET APARTMENTS APARTMENTS INVESTORS LLC

ALLIANCE SOUTHWEST LLC.

ALLIANCE COMMUNITIES INC.

ALLIANCE SOUTHWEST LLC . AN ARIZONA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

VIRAG BRIAN J. ESQ.

VIRAG BRIAN JEFFREY ESQ.

VIRAG BRIAN JEFFREY

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP

GUERIN CHRISTINA M

MCLAIN MICHAEL ANTHONY

 

Court Documents

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS

1/14/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS)

1/29/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS)

Order - ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY AND AIC'S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS

12/9/2019: Order - ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY AND AIC'S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY

11/22/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR...)

11/19/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR...)

Motion re: - MOTION RE: REOPEN DISCOVERY RE DEF 900 S FIG. ST. APARTMENTS INVESTORS, LLC

10/23/2019: Motion re: - MOTION RE: REOPEN DISCOVERY RE DEF 900 S FIG. ST. APARTMENTS INVESTORS, LLC

Separate Statement - SEPARATE STATEMENT PLAINTIFFS STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED/DISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY J

7/30/2019: Separate Statement - SEPARATE STATEMENT PLAINTIFFS STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED/DISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY J

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

8/2/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

8/6/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Request for Judicial Notice

6/11/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

Motion for Summary Judgment

5/29/2019: Motion for Summary Judgment

Declaration - DECLARATION OF CHRISTINE M GUERIN

5/29/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF CHRISTINE M GUERIN

Notice - NOTICE OF RESCHEDULED HEARING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

3/18/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF RESCHEDULED HEARING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

1/8/2019: Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings) of 02/14/2019

2/14/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings) of 02/14/2019

DEFENDANT 900 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET APARTMENTS INVESTORS LLCS NOTICE OF DEPOSIT OF JURY FEES

6/26/2018: DEFENDANT 900 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET APARTMENTS INVESTORS LLCS NOTICE OF DEPOSIT OF JURY FEES

CIVIL DEPOSIT -

6/26/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT -

DEFENDANTS CROSS COMPLAINANT 900 SOUTH FIGEROA STREET APARTMENTS INVESTORS LLCS CROSS COMPLAINT

6/26/2018: DEFENDANTS CROSS COMPLAINANT 900 SOUTH FIGEROA STREET APARTMENTS INVESTORS LLCS CROSS COMPLAINT

66 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/10/2020
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Mathew Kredell (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/03/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 32, Daniel S. Murphy, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/03/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 32, Daniel S. Murphy, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/03/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement))); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 32, Daniel S. Murphy, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 32, Daniel S. Murphy, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/21/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause re: Dismissal (Settlement); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/21/2020
  • DocketNotice of Settlement; Filed by Mathew Kredell (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/14/2020
  • DocketOpposition ( to Motion to Quash Service of Summons); Filed by Mathew Kredell (Plaintiff); Carissa Mendoza (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
83 More Docket Entries
  • 06/26/2018
  • DocketDEFENDANT 900 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET APARTMENTS INVESTORS LLC'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Relocation Rescheduling; Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2018
  • DocketCross-Complaint; Filed by 900 South Figueroa Street Apartments - (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by 900 South Figueroa Street Apartments - (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2018
  • DocketReceipt; Filed by 900 South Figueroa Street Apartments - (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by 900 South Figueroa Street Apartments - (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2018
  • DocketNotice; Filed by 900 South Figueroa Street Apartments - (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Mathew Kredell (Plaintiff); Carissa Mendoza (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1. BREACH OF WARRANLY OF HABITABILITY (VIOLATION OF CIVIL CODE 1941.1) ;ETC

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC697514    Hearing Date: December 09, 2019    Dept: 32

mathew kredell, et. al.

Plaintiffs,

v.

900 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET APARTMENTS INVESTORS LLC, et. al.

Defendants.

Case No.: BC697514

Hearing Date: December 9, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

(1) Plaintiffs’ Motion to reopen discovery

(2) AIC’s Motion to quash SERVICE OF summons

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Mathew Kredell (“Kredell”) and Carissa Mendoza (“Mendoza”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) commenced this action against Defendant 900 South Figueroa Street Apartments Investors LLC (“Figueroa Apartments”) on March 12, 2018. The operative pleading is the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) filed on May 7, 2019. The FAC asserts causes of action for (1) breach of warranty of habitability (violation of Civil Code section 1941.1); (2) breach of warranty of habitability (violation of Health & Safety Code section 17920.3); (3) breach of warranty of habitability (violation of Civil Code section 1942.4); (4) negligence – premises liability; (5) nuisance; (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (7) breach of contract; and (8) breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment. Plaintiffs’ action arises out of Defendant’s alleged failure to properly maintain and repair Plaintiffs’ leased rental unit.

On August 6, 2019, Plaintiffs named Alliance Communities, Inc. (“ACI”) as Doe 1 and Alliance Southwest, LLC as Doe 2. On September 25, 2019, Plaintiffs named “Alliance Southwest, LLC., An Arizona Limited Liability Company” as Doe 3.

On August 15, 2019, the Court granted Figueroa Apartments’ motion to strike the FAC’s third cause of action and also granted its motion for summary adjudication of the FAC’s sixth cause of action and punitive damages claim.

MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY

Plaintiffs move to reopen discovery for the purpose of propounding discovery on and taking the deposition of Figueroa Apartments.

A. Legal Standard

Parties are entitled to complete discovery on or before the 30th day before the date initially set for trial and to have discovery motions heard on or before the 15th day before the date initially set for trial. (CCP § 2024.020(a).) A continuance or postponement of the trial date does not operate to reopen discovery proceedings. (CCP § 2024.020(b).)

On motion of a party, the court may reopen discovery after a new trial date has been set. (CCP § 2024.050(a).) Such motions must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Ibid.) The reopening of discovery is a matter that is committed to the trial court’s sound discretion. (CCP § 2024.050(b).) In exercising that discretion, the trial court considers any matter relevant to the leave requested including: (1) the necessity and the reasons for the discovery; (2) the diligence or lack of diligence of the party seeking the discovery or the hearing of a discovery motion, and the reasons that the discovery was not completed or that the discovery motion was not heard earlier; (3) any likelihood that permitting the discovery or hearing the discovery motion will prevent the case from going to trial on the date set, or otherwise interfere with the trial calendar, or result in prejudice to any other party; and (4) the length of time that has elapsed between any date previously set, and the date presently set, for the trial of the action. (Ibid.)

B. Analysis

Plaintiffs contend that the factors enumerated in CCP section 2024.050 warrant the reopening of discovery.

The first factor is “the necessity and the reasons for the discovery.” Plaintiffs argue that this factor weighs in favor of reopening discovery because they need to propound written discovery on Defendants and take Figueroa Apartment’s PMK deposition. The evidence shows that Plaintiffs propounded written discovery for the first time twenty days before the discovery cut-off date. (Patrikyan Decl. ¶ 10; Guerin Decl. ¶ 3.) Because this discovery was untimely, Figueroa Apartments refused to respond. (Ibid.)

The Court agrees that this factor weighs in favor of reopening discovery. Conducting written discovery and taking the deposition of the property owner in a warranty of habitability lawsuit is unquestionably necessary.

The second factor is “the diligence or lack of diligence of the party seeking the discovery or the hearing of a discovery motion, and the reasons that the discovery was not completed or that the discovery motion was not heard earlier.” Plaintiffs argue that they were diligent in prosecuting this action because this action was only at issue for four months prior to the close of discovery. Plaintiffs also argue that their discovery plan was premised on the reasonable belief that the original trial date of September 12, 2019 would be continued pursuant to the PI Transfer Order. That transfer order states in pertinent part: “Any pending motions or hearings, including trial or status conference, will be reset, continued or vacated at the direction of the newly assigned IC court.”

Plaintiffs’ showing is thoroughly unavailing. Plaintiffs commenced this action on March 12, 2018. Plaintiffs could have propounded discovery as early as July 16, 2018, that is, twenty days after Figueroa Apartments’ first appearance. (See California Shellfish Inc. v. United Shellfish Co. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 16, 22.) Plaintiffs failed to exercise due diligence by failing to conduct discovery for over a year.

Plaintiffs’ counterarguments are inapt. Plaintiffs were not precluded from engaging in discovery because Defendants had filed a motion attacking the Complaint. “Pleading deficiencies generally do not affect either party’s right to conduct discovery.” (Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1429, 1436 fn.3.) Moreover, the PI Transfer Order does not assist Plaintiff. As Figueroa Apartments points out, Plaintiffs knew that the original trial date was still in place. (Guerin Decl. Ex. 1, p. 2.) And the PI Transfer Order does not specify on what date the trial date would reset, continue, or vacate this matter. A reasonably prudent person would not refrain from conducting discovery based on speculation that the Court would continue this matter to some point in the distant future.

The third factor is “any likelihood that permitting the discovery or hearing the discovery motion will prevent the case from going to trial on the date set, or otherwise interfere with the trial calendar, or result in prejudice to any other party.” Plaintiffs argue that this factor weighs in favor of reopening discovery because the trial date has been continued to March 3, 2020. Plaintiffs note that setting a new discovery cut-off date based on this trial date will not interfere with the trial calendar. The Court agrees. In opposition, Defendants have not substantiated any cognizable prejudice that they would suffer from the reopening of discovery.

In short, the first and third factors weigh in favor of reopening discovery; the second factor weighs strongly against reopening discovery. Based on consideration of these factors, the Court concludes that discovery should be reopened with a limited scope. Plaintiffs’ right to discovery is limited to the following: (1) re-serving written discovery originally served on July 18, 2019 and (2) taking Figueroa Apartment’s PMK deposition.

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS

Specially Appearing Defendant ACI moves to quash service of summons upon it on the ground that the Doe Amendment naming ACI is invalid.

A. Legal Standard

CCP section 474 “permits a plaintiff to amend complaints by adding parties as Doe defendants ‘when the plaintiff is ignorant of the name of a defendant’ at the time the complaint is filed.” (Davis v. Marin (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 380, 386.) “[T]he plaintiff must actually be ignorant of the Doe defendant’s name, i.e., ‘ignorant of the facts giving rise to a cause of action against that defendant.’ ” (Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Sparks Construction, Inc. (2004) 114 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1143.) “The question is whether [the plaintiff] knew or reasonably should have known that he had a cause of action against [the defendant].” (McClatchy v. Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass, LLP (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 368, 371.)

If a plaintiff fails to comply with CCP section 474, the defendant may attack service of summons by a motion to quash. (McClatchy, supra, 247 Cal.App.4th at 375.) Failure to comply with CCP section 474 does not prevent a plaintiff from filing an amendment adding a new defendant; however, it does prevent the amendment from relating back. (Fireman’s, supra, 114 Cal.App.4th at 1144.)

B. Request for Judicial Notice

ACI’s requests for judicial notice are GRANTED. (Evid. Code § 452(d).)

C. Discussion

ACI asserts that Plaintiffs’ Doe Amendment naming ACI is improper because Plaintiffs were neither ignorant of ACI’s identity nor ignorant of the facts allegedly giving rise to ACI’s liability at the time the Complaint was filed. The Court agrees.

Plaintiffs knew or reasonably should have known ACI’s identity. Attached to the Complaint is a lease agreement executed between Plaintiffs and Figueroa Apartments. (Compl. Ex. 1.) The lease agreement bears an AIC insignia. (Ibid.) On the front page of this lease agreement, Figueroa Apartments is identified as the landlord and, right beneath that, AIC is identified as Figueroa Apartment’s agent. (Ibid.) The identity of AIC (and the significance of its role in this lawsuit) was abundantly clear by examination of the face of the Complaint.

Likewise, Plaintiffs knew or reasonably should have known the facts giving rise to a cause of action against ACI. Insofar as the Complaint shows, those facts are the same facts giving rise to a cause of action against Figueroa Apartments because ACI was Figueroa Apartments’ agent with respect to the lease agreement. Reinforcing this conclusion, the Complaint repeatedly references Figueroa Apartment’s managing agents and bases liability on those agents’ actions / inactions. (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 27, 38, 53, 67.)

Plaintiffs argue that they only learned of ACI’s identity and liability in this action shortly before filing their Doe Amendment. However, Plaintiffs provide no evidence in support of this assertion (Evid. Code § 413), and this assertion is at odds with reasonable inferences drawn from the face of the Complaint.

Plaintiffs also argue that AIC has failed to show actual prejudice due to delays in filing this Doe Amendment. Plaintiffs are incorrect. “[I]f the identity ignorance requirement of section 474 is not met, a new defendant may not be added after the statute of limitations has expired even if the new defendant cannot establish prejudice resulting from the delay.” (Woo v. Superior Court (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 169, 177.)

ACI’s motion to quash service of summons is GRANTED.