#1 - Leonid Lurye v. Mikhail Cheban, et al (18STCV05747)
#2 - International Trading Associates, Inc. v. Red & White Distribution Sacramento, LLC, et al (19STCV12333)
#3 - Svetlana Klimova v. Dumpling Delight, LLC (BC626247)
#4 - Svetlana Klimova v. Mikhail Cheban, et al (BC665711)
On May 14, 2019, Judge Holly J. Fujie in Department 56 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse issued an order in BC665711 Svetlana Klimova v. Mikhail Cheban, et al. The order provided:
The Court finds that the following cases, BC665711, 18STCV05747, and 19STCV12333, are related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a). BC665711 is the lead case. For good cause shown, said cases are assigned to Judge Holly J. Fujie in Department 56 at Stanley Mosk Courthouse for all purposes.
On May 14, 2019, Defendants Mikhail Cheban and Red & White Distribution Sacramento, LLC filed a document entitled “Objection to Relation of Cases Before Hon. Holly J. Fujie re: Timely Peremptory Challenge Filed and Accepted and Requests to Vacate Relation Nunc Pro Tunc.”
On May 22, 2019, Department 1 set an Order to Show Cause Re: why case 18STCV05747 should not be unrelated and reassigned back to Judge Rupert A. Byrdsong in Department 28, noting that the court was only inclined to reconsider the relation and reassignment of 18STCV05747. The court’s May 22, 2019 is incorporated herein by reference.
On June 5, 2019, Plaintiff Leonid Lurye filed a non-opposition in 18STCV05747 to Department 1’s May 22, 2019 minute order. On May 30, 2019, Defendants Mikhail Cheban, Dumpling Delight, Inc., Red & White Distribution Sacramento, LLC, filed their “Opposition to Order to Show Cause Why the Determination Whether Case 18STCV05747 and Case 19STCV12333 are Related to 18STCV05747 Should Not Be Made by Hon. Holly J. Fujie” in BC665711, 18STCV05747, and 19STCV12333. The oppositions are identical.
The oppositions contend Department 1 “correctly determined” that Judge Holly J. Fujie was the proper judicial officer to consider the Notice because Judge Fujie held the earliest filed case. (CRC 3.300(h)(1)(A).) However, the Oppositions further contend “Judge Fujie was not authorized to determine whether the cases were ‘related’ because a challenge of prejudice pursuant to Section 170.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been made against, and accepted by, her in BC665711.”
Defendants are incorrect. As noted in this court’s May 22, 2019 order, the earliest filed case, BC665711, was assigned to Judge Fujie on February 14, 2018 via a Notice of Case Reassignment. The parties did not file a peremptory challenge against Judge Fujie in BC665711. Rather, Judge Fujie accepted a Section 170.6 challenge in 18STCV05747 on January 16, 2019. As stated in this court’s prior order, Judge Fujie presides over the earliest filed case, BC665711 and was the appropriate judicial officer to determine whether BC665711 and 19STCV12333 were related. (CRC 3.300(h)(1)(A).) However, as to 18STCV05747, the Section 170.6 peremptory challenge accepted by Judge Fujie must prevail. (Rothstein v. Superior Court (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 424, 431.)
Accordingly, Leonid Lurye v. Mikhail Cheban, et al (18STCV05747) is hereby unrelated from BC665711 and 19STCV12333. The court orders 18STCV05747 reassigned back to Judge Rupert A. Byrdsong in Department 28. The other two cases, BC665711 and 19STCV12333, are to remain with Judge Holly Fujie in Department 56.
Clerk to give notice.