Renita Williams et al. v. Group XII Properties et al.

34-2023-00336240-CU-PO-GDS: Renita Williams vs. Equity Management, Inc 04/25/2025 Hearing on Motion to Consolidate in Department 47

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE: If oral arguments are requested or appearances are required, the hearing may be conducted in person or remotely via ZoomGov [which includes telephonic and teleconferencing options]. No Court Call appearances will be permitted. If you choose to use Zoom you must use your first and last name on your ZoomGov account so the court can positively identify you. The Department 47 ZoomLink is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept47 and the ZoomGov ID is: 16173813009. Appearances via videoconference using the above link are preferred. To appear on ZoomGov by phone, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the ZoomGov ID referenced above, available phone commands include *6 to mute/unmute or *9 to raise your hand. If you experience issues joining your hearing, please contact the clerk in Department 47 at (916) 874-5487 for assistance.

The motion of Renita Williams, et. al. and Michael Hermosillo, et al. (collectively “Plaintiffs”) to consolidate Renita Williams, et al. v. Group XII Properties, et al., Case No. 34-2023- 00336240, and Michael Hermosillo, et al. v. Group XII Properties, et al., Case No. 23CV012675 is GRANTED.

The actions to be consolidated involve claims by 67 current and former tenants of a multi-family property owned and/or operated by the defendants arising from alleged substandard conditions at the property. Plaintiffs argue there are common questions of fact and law because the actions assert identical claims based on the same theories of substandard conditions at the same property. Plaintiffs argue consolidation would promote judicial economy because the same witnesses will testify in both actions. Group XIII Properties, LP, Equity Management Inc., and Intervenor International Insurance Company of Hannover agree a single trial would promote judicial economy and stipulate to consolidation. (Rinehart Decl., Exh. A.)

Intervenor Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc. (“Associated”) opposes the motion. Associated argues Plaintiff have failed to explain why the same witnesses will be called in each action and has failed to present sufficient evidence to demonstrate the alleged conditions are factually or chronologically related. Significantly, however, Associated only opposes consolidation for all purposes including trial. (Opposition, p. 3:22-23.) Associated concedes there are sufficient common questions of law and fact such that consolidation for pre-trial purposes is appropriate.

34-2023-00336240-CU-PO-GDS: Renita Williams vs. Equity Management, Inc 04/25/2025 Hearing on Motion to Consolidate in Department 47

Upon review, the pleadings in the two actions allege the same defendants engaged in a common scheme to maximize profits at the same property by refusing to repair substandard conditions. The Court is satisfied, based on the collective papers, that there are substantial common questions of law and fact and that consolidation will promote judicial economy. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 1048(a).)

The motion to consolidate for all purposes is granted. Nothing in this order is intended to deprive the trial judge of authority to conduct separate trials.

Renita Williams, et al. v. Group XII Properties, et al., Case No. 34-2023-00336240shall be the lead case. The case management judge assigned to the lead case shall hear case management issues in the consolidated cases. The case management timelines applicable to the lead case shall govern all cases. Any hearings in actions other than the lead case are VACATED. The parties shall contact the law and motion department assigned to the lead case to reschedule the hearings for any pending law and motion matters.

This case has been assigned to Department 47 for hearing. In the event that either party requests a hearing the matter will be heard at 9:30 a.m. in Department 47. Any party requesting an oral argument must contact the clerk at (916) 874-5487 and opposing counsel or parties in pro per by 12:00 p.m. on the day before the hearing. If a proper request for hearing is not made, this shall become the order of the Court.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government Code section 68086 and California Rules of Court, rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list, Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk.

If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00336240-CU-PO-GDS: Renita Williams vs. Equity Management, Inc 04/25/2025 Hearing on Motion to Consolidate in Department 47

the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.