Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 24STCV00639, Date: 2024-02-27 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCV00639 Hearing Date: April 10, 2024 Dept: 14
Parada v. Curtis
Case Background
Unlawful detainer after
non-judicial foreclosure.
On January 10, 2024, Plaintiff
filed his Complaint for Unlawful Detainer against Defendants Greta Curtis
(“Curtis”), Kevin Richardson (“Richardson”), and DOES 1-20.
No trial
date has yet been set.
(1) Demurrer
Defendants Curtis
and Richardson now demur to the Complaint on the grounds that it was filed
prematurely and there is another action pending.
Decision
The demurrer
is TAKEN OFF-CALENDAR. The case is STAYED, pending the outcome of Case No. 22 STCV
15940. The court sets a Status Conference re: Case
No. 22 STCV 15940 for July 10, 2024 at 8:30 am.
The
court also sets an OSC re: Reclassification for May 3, 2024, at 8:30 am.
Responses to the OSC, if any, are due by April 24, 2024.
Discussion
Defendants argue that they are tenants entitled to 90 days
notice pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1161b. But on demurrer, this
court must assume that the facts pled in the Complaint are true. And the
Complaint alleges that Defendants are not tenants under a lease and are
entitled to only 3 days notice. (Complaint ¶¶ 12-15). This is a matter for
a summary judgment motion, not a demurrer.
More
interesting is the contention that there is another action pending. Defendants
refer to D&G International Investment Services, LLC v. Fidelity National
Title Company, et al. (LASC Case No. 22 STCV 15940) currently pending
before Judge Christopher K. Lui, sitting in Department 76 of this courthouse.
In that case, the former owner of the building alleges that the non-judicial
foreclosure was wrongfully conducted and seeks rescission of the foreclosure sale.
(Third Amended Complaint filed in Case No. 22 STCV 15940 on September 11,
2023). If the plaintiff in that case succeeds, the plaintiff in this case will
have no title to the property and no right to evict the defendants.
The
pendency of another action may be grounds for a demurrer under Code of Civil
Procedure § 430.10(c). Defense argues that such a demurrer cannot be
brought in an unlawful detainer case because such cases are “special
proceedings” not “actions.” In this context, that is a distinction without a
difference. That is especially true in light of Martin-Bragg v. Moore
(2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 367, which holds that where there is a
dispute over title which affects an owner’s right to file for unlawful
detainer, the unlawful detainer action must be stayed pending resolution of the
title dispute. See also Franklin & Franklin v. 7-Eleven Owners for Fair
Franchising (2000) 85 C.A.4th 1168, 1175 (discussing exclusive concurrent
jurisdiction).
Because
there is current litigation over title to this property, and that dispute has
the potential to deprive Plaintiff in this case of his right to bring this
action, this court is obliged to stay this case pending resolution of the prior
case. However, since the appropriate remedy is a stay, the court cannot rule on
the demurrer. All the court can do is begin to monitor the other case, and
assure Defendants that they will have a chance to file a new responsive
pleading when the other case is resolved and the stay is lifted.
Separate
from the question of whether this case can proceed is the question of where it
can proceed. Plaintiff has pled daily damages of $110.97, running from January
10, 2024. That brings Plaintiff’s damages to $10,098.27. This is well short of
the court’s jurisdictional limitation of $35,000. It appears that this case
belongs in the limited jurisdiction courts.
Conclusion
Defendants
have properly made a plea in abatement by identifying another action which may
result in the loss of Plaintiff’s right to prosecute this action. Therefore,
this case is STAYED, pending the outcome of Case No. 22 STCV 15940. The
demurrer is TAKEN OFF-CALENDAR. The
court sets a Status Conference re: Case No. 22 STCV 15940
for July 10, 2024 at 8:30 am.