Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/15/2019 at 10:06:53 (UTC).

ROSA GUTIERREZ VS NORWALK INN & SUITES

Case Summary

On 05/18/2017 ROSA GUTIERREZ filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against NORWALK INN SUITES. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Norwalk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is MARGARET MILLER BERNAL. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6315

  • Filing Date:

    05/18/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Norwalk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

MARGARET MILLER BERNAL

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

GUTIERREZ ROSA

GUTIERREZ ROSA AN INDIVIDUAL

Defendants

NORWALK INN & SUITES

FAN CHUNYI AN INDIVIDUAL

HUA JIE AN INDIVIDUAL

FAN DIDI AN INDIVIDUAL

HUA JIE

LIAO JENN JUNG

FAN DIDI

FAN CHUNYI

LIAO KAREY LY

NORWALK MOTEL PROPERTY LLC DBA

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

WILENS JEFFREY NEIL

Defendant Attorneys

MURTAUGH MILLER MEYER & TREGLIA LLP

MARVIZI DANIEL DAVID

ERSOFF VICTORIA LYNN

 

Court Documents

Civil Case Cover Sheet

5/18/2017: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Legacy Document

6/15/2017: Legacy Document

Cross-Complaint

8/2/2017: Cross-Complaint

Legacy Document

8/28/2017: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

9/11/2017: Legacy Document

Substitution of Attorney

10/2/2017: Substitution of Attorney

Minute Order

10/20/2017: Minute Order

Minute Order

11/27/2017: Minute Order

Minute Order

1/29/2018: Minute Order

Legacy Document

4/9/2018: Legacy Document

Minute Order

4/19/2018: Minute Order

Notice of Ruling

4/24/2018: Notice of Ruling

Case Management Statement

10/19/2018: Case Management Statement

Notice

10/31/2018: Notice

Minute Order

11/1/2018: Minute Order

Separate Statement

2/26/2019: Separate Statement

Reply

3/5/2019: Reply

Minute Order

5/22/2019: Minute Order

62 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/28/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department F at 12720 Norwalk Blvd., Norwalk, CA 90650; Trial Setting Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department F, Margaret Miller Bernal, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Trial Setting Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/06/2019
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by ROSA GUTIERREZ (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2019
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department C; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Further Responses to Discovery Requests, Points and Authorities, Declaration in Support Thereof) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery Re...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2019
  • DocketOrder (re: hearing of 3/12/19); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2019
  • DocketReply (to Opposition to Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses); Filed by ROSA GUTIERREZ (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2019
  • DocketOpposition (to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Discovery Requests); Filed by NORWALK MOTEL PROPERTY LLC dba (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2019
  • DocketSeparate Statement; Filed by NORWALK MOTEL PROPERTY LLC dba (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
77 More Docket Entries
  • 06/15/2017
  • DocketRtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by ROSA GUTIERREZ (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/15/2017
  • DocketRtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by ROSA GUTIERREZ (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/15/2017
  • DocketRtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by ROSA GUTIERREZ (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/15/2017
  • DocketRtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by ROSA GUTIERREZ (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2017
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by ROSA GUTIERREZ (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2017
  • DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by ROSA GUTIERREZ (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2017
  • DocketRequest to Waive Court Fees; Filed by ROSA GUTIERREZ (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2017
  • DocketOrder on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by ROSA GUTIERREZ (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: VC066315    Hearing Date: July 02, 2020    Dept: SEC

GUTIERREZ v. NORWALK INN & SUITES

CASE NO.:  VC066315

HEARING:  07/02/2020

#2

TENTATIVE ORDER

Plaintiff’s Motion to Certify Class is GRANTED.

Moving Party to give notice.

“Under Code of Civil Procedure section 382, a class action is permitted ‘when the question is one of a common or general interest, or many persons, or when the parties are numerous, and it is impracticable to bring them all before the court….’ Class certification requires both an ascertainable class and a well-defined community of interest among class members.” (Gattuso v. Harte-Hanks Shoppers, Inc. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 554, 575.) “The ‘community of interest’ requirement embodies three factors: (1) predominant questions of law or fact; (2) class representatives with claims or defenses typical of the class; and (3) class representatives who can adequately represent the class.’” (Id.)

Plaintiff GUTIERREZ on behalf of herself and a proposed class of certain occupants of NORWALK INN & SUITES (“Hotel”) seeks an order granting her motion to certify a class of persons subjected to the Hotel’s requirement that guests move out or check out and register every 28 days, which Plaintiff alleges is a violation of Cal. Civ. Code §1940.1.

In Opposition, Defendants NORWALK MOTEL PROPERTY LLC; DIDI FAN; CHUNYI FAN; and JIE HUA (collectively “Defendants”) argue that: (1) Cal. Civ. Code §1940.1 does not apply to the Hotel; (2) the proposed class is not ascertainable; (3) there is no well-defined community of interest among the proposed class; (4) there are no substantial benefits from certification that make proceeding as a class superior to the alternative; and (5) class certification should be denied as plaintiffs have not proposed a trial plan.

Cal. Civ. Code §1940.1 states that “No person may require an occupant of a residential hotel, as defined in Section 50519 of the Health and Safety Code, to move, or to check out and reregister, before the expiration of 30 days occupancy if a purpose is to have that occupant maintain transient occupancy status…. Evidence that an occupant was required to check out and reregister shall create a rebuttable presumption, which shall affect solely the burden of producing evidence, of the purpose referred to in this subdivision.” (Id.) “ ‘Residential hotel’ means any building containing six or more guestrooms or efficiency units, as defined by Section 17958.1, intended or designed to be used, or which are used, rented or hired out, to be occupied, or which are occupied, for sleeping purposes by guests, which is also the primary residence of those guests, but does not mean any building containing six or more guestrooms or efficiency units, as defined by Section 17958.1, which is primarily used by transient guests who do not occupy that building as their primary residence.” (Cal. Health & Safety Code §50519(b)(1).)

Defendants argue that Cal. Civ. Code §1940.1 does not apply to the Hotel because the Hotel cannot be classified as a “residential hotel” pursuant to Health & Safety Code 50519(b)(1). This argument is prematurely adjudicated at this juncture. “Presented with a class certification motion, a trial court must examine the plaintiff’s theory of recovery, assess the nature of the legal and factual disputes likely to be presented, and decide whether individual or common issues predominate. To the extent the propriety of certification depends upon disputed threshold legal or factual questions, a court may, and indeed must, resolve them. Out of respect for the problems arising from one-way intervention, however, a court generally should eschew resolution of such issues unless necessary. [Citations Omitted.] Consequently, a trial court does not abuse its discretion if it certifies (or denies certification of) a class without deciding one or more issues affecting the nature of a given element if resolution of such issues would not affect the ultimate certification decision.” (emphasis added.) (Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004, 1025.) Consequently, in weighing evidence, the Court does not evaluate whether the claims asserted are legally or factually meritorious. (Linder v. Thrifty Oil Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 429, 439-440.)

The Court further finds that: there is a well-defined community of interest in questions of law and fact arising out of the Plaintiff’s claim that the Hotel’s requirement that guests move out or check out and register every 28 days is in violation of Cal. Civ. Code §1940.1; Plaintiff’s claim is typical of the class because Plaintiff was an occupant of the Hotel and received the same instructions as other occupants on the Hotel’s 28 day limit on occupancy and the Hotel’s policy and practice to permit occupants to live at the Hotel on a permanent basis— that occupants had to move out every 28 days before checking back in; Plaintiff and counsel will fairly and adequately represent the class and have no antagonistic interests thereto; and a class action is superior to individual actions based on the $500 statutory damages at issue, in the interests of judicial efficiency, and to avoid piecemeal litigation.

The Plaintiff class shall consist of: All persons who resided at the Norwalk Inn & Suites for at least 15 consecutive days after July 1, 2016 and who were required to move out or check out and re-register before the expiration of 30 consecutive days of occupancy.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification is GRANTED.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer Wilens, Jeffrey Neil