Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 23STC21VEUD00952, Date: 2024-01-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STC21VEUD00952    Hearing Date: January 29, 2024    Dept: 14

Case Background

Defendant alleges in the lead case that certain entities, including Plaintiff in this case, are improperly attempting to foreclose on her home. Plaintiff in this case claims that it bought the Defendant’s home at a foreclosure sale and wants to evict Defendant.

            On December 21, 2021, Plaintiff filed their Complaint for Unlawful Detainer against Defendants Orna Shaposhnik (“Shaposhnik”) and DOES 1-10.

On January 10, 2022, Defendant Shaposhnik filed her Answer.

On February 10, 2022, this court stayed this case pursuant to Martin-Bragg v. Moore (2013) 219 Cal.App.4^th 367.

On April 14, 2023, this court ordered that Defendant Shaposhnik post a bond in the lump sum of $91,581.50, with further monthly additions of $5,353.18.

On May 31, 2023, this court found that Plaintiff had not complied with the bond order and lifted the stay on this case.

            No trial date has yet been set.

(1)        Motion to Stay

            Defendant Shaposhnik now moves this court for orders (1) staying the case and (2) clarifying its order of October 31, 2023.

Decision

The request to stay the case is GRANTED. Status conference is set for April 29, 2024, at 8:30 am.

The request for clarification is DENIED. This is not a true request for clarification but an additional argument in favor of the previous request.

Discussion

            On February 10, 2022, this court stayed this case pending resolution on the related case, pursuant to Martin-Bragg v. Moore (2013) 219 Cal.App.4^th 367. On April 14, 2023, this court ordered Defendant to post a bond of $91,581.50 pursuant to Martin-Bragg and Code of Civil Procedure § 1170.5. The bond was ordered posted by May 15, 2023.

            Defendant did not post the bond. On May 31, 2023, this court lifted the stay, explaining that the law creates a bargain between the parties – that a bond will be posted in exchange for the stay – and a party who will not fulfill their end of the bargain cannot receive its benefits. (Order filed May 31, 2023).

            On October 31, 2023, pursuant to a motion for reconsideration, this court reduced the amount of the bond to $25,000.00 based on a jurisdictional argument not previously raised. Defendant posted a bond in that amount on November 15, 2023.

            Defendant now requests that the court re-impose the stay. Plaintiff did not file an opposition. Following Martin-Bragg, supra, 219 Cal.App.4^th at 385-393, as this court has endeavored to do throughout the entire process, requires the re-imposition of the stay. Now that Defendant has fulfilled her part of the bargain, she may receive its benefit.

Conclusion

            Because Defendant has now posted the required bond, a stay is once again appropriate in this case. The request for such a stay is GRANTED. Status conference is set for April 29, 2024, at 8:30 am. The request for clarification is DENIED. There is nothing to clarify.

(2)        MSJ

            Plaintiff now moves this court for an order granting it summary judgment on its complaint.

Decision

            The motion is TAKEN OFF-CALENDAR. It may be placed back on calendar at the request of counsel after the stay is lifted.