Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 24STCV15851, Date: 2024-12-23 Tentative Ruling

All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter.  If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SMCDEPT71@lacourt.org. Do not click on the email address, either copy and paste it or type it into your email. Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.

            Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line.

            If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect. If the moving party fails to appear and/or submit to the Court’s tentative ruling, the Court will take the matter off calendar.

            Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court.

If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.

Plaintiff Min S. Lee’s motion for this Court to consolidate the Unlawful Detainer Action, Leonard v. Lee, LASC Case No. 24STCV14625, with this action (Case No.: 24STCV15851), is denied.

Plaintiff’s request in the alternative to stay the Unlawful Detainer Action is denied as moot.

Plaintiff Min S. Lee (“Lee”) (“Plaintiff”) moves to consolidate the instant matter with the Unlawful Detainer (“UD”) Action, Mark Leonard v. Min S. Lee, LASC Case No. 24STCV14625, and to stay the UD. (Notice Motion, pgs. 2; C.C.P. §§1048, 527, 1170.5.) Plaintiff moves on the grounds that the UD and instant, related civil action involve identical issues of fact and law that should be resolved together to prevent inconsistent rulings, conserve judicial resources, and protect Plaintiff’s due process rights. (Notice Motion, pg. 2.)

Plaintiff also moves to stay the UD action for lack of service, to continue the motion for summary judgment hearing, and Preliminary and Permanent Injunction. (Notice Motion, pg. 2.)

Moving Defendant’s 12/10/24 request for judicial notice of (1) Motion for Summary Judgment (relevant pages, showing proof of service), filed by Leonard on or about August 23, 2024, in Case No. 24STCV14625 (D-RJN, Exh. A); (2) Notice of Appeal, filed by Lee on October 22, 2024, in Case No. 24STCV14625 (D-RJN, Exh. B); (3) Judgment in Favor of Leonard, filed on or about November 7, 2024, in Case No. 24STCV14625 (D-RJN, Exh. C); (4) Minute Order Denying Ex Parte Application to Stay Execution of Judgment, filed on December 3, 2024, in Case No. 24STCV14625 (D-RJN, Exh. D); and (5) Order Denying Immediate Stay Request, filed on or about December 5, 2024, in Case No. B342499, in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District (D-RJN, Exh. E) is granted.

On June 11, 2025, Mark Leonard (“Leonard”) (“Moving Defendant”) filed the related UD Action, Mark Leonard v. Min S. Lee, LASC Case No. 24STCV14625.

On June 25, 2024, Plaintiff filed her operative Complaint in this matter against numerous Defendants, including Leonard, alleging twelve causes of action: (1) to set aside sale; (2) fraud; (3) constructive fraud; (4) breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing; (5) breach of contract; (6) quiet title; (7) violation of Civil Code §1671; (8) violation of 12 C.F.R. 1026.41; (9) violation of Business & Professions Code §§17200 et seq; (10) accounting; (11) declaratory relief; and (12) injunctive relief.

On November 7, 2024, this Court entered judgment on the UD Action in favor of Leonard and against Lee, after granting summary judgment for Leonard. (D-RJN, Exh. C.)

Plaintiff filed the instant motion on October 3, 2024. Defendant filed his opposition on December 10, 2024. As of the date of this hearing no reply has been filed.

C.C.P. §1048(a) provides: “When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.” (C.C.P. §1048(a).)

“In unlawful detainer proceedings, ordinarily the only triable issue is the right to possession of the disputed premises, along with incidental damages resulting from the unlawful detention. [Citations.] Ordinarily, issues respecting the title to the property cannot be adjudicated in an unlawful detainer action. [Citations.] The denial of certain procedural rights enjoyed by litigants in ordinary actions is deemed necessary in order to prevent frustration of the summary proceedings by the introduction of delays and extraneous issues. [Citations.].” (Martin-Bragg v. Moore (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 367, 385, internal citations omitted.)

“However, the trial court has the power to consolidate an unlawful detainer proceeding with a simultaneously pending action in which title to the property is in issue. That is because a successful claim of title by the tenant would defeat the landlord's right to possession. [Citation.] When an unlawful detainer proceeding and an unlimited action concerning title to the property are simultaneously pending, the trial court in which the unlimited action is pending may stay the unlawful detainer action until the issue of title is resolved in the unlimited action, or it may consolidate the actions. [Citation.] If it does neither and instead tries the issue of title under the summary procedures that constrain unlawful detainer proceedings, the parties’ right to a full trial of the issue of title may be unfairly expedited and limited. If complex issues of title are tried in the unlawful detainer proceeding, the proceeding loses its summary character; defects in the plaintiff's title ‘are neither properly raised in this summary proceeding for possession, nor are they concluded by the judgment.’ [Citations.]” (Id.)

As an initial matter, Plaintiff’s appeal of the UD Action judgment divested this Court of jurisdiction to make any order affecting the UD Action. (D-RJN, Exh. B); People v. Espinosa (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1487, 1496 [“Generally, the filing of a notice of appeal vests jurisdiction in the appellate court and divests the trial court of jurisdiction to make any order affecting the judgment.”].)

Next, Plaintiff was required to file the instant motion in the UD Action, both because the UD Action is one of the cases sought to be consolidated and because it is the lower-numbered case. (CRC, Rule 3.350(a)(1)(C), (a)(2)(A).) A review of the docket in the UD Action reveals that the motion was not filed in that case. Additionally, Plaintiff’s proof of service shows the motion was not served on Donald Iwuchuku, Plaintiff’s counsel of record in the UD Action. (CRC, Rule 3.350(a)(2)(B) [A motion to consolidate “[m]ust be served on all attorneys of record […] in all of the cases sought to be consolidated […]”.].)

In addition, consolidation of the two actions cannot happen as a matter of law, since it would strip the prevailing plaintiff in the UD Action, Leonard, of accrued rights (an enforceable judgment) and would act as a de facto order vacating or reversing the judgment in the UD Action. (Realty Construction & Mortgage Co. v. Superior Court of San Joaquin County (1913) 165 Cal. 543, 547-548 [consolidation should not be ordered when it will diminish “the right[s] of the plaintiff [which] ha[ve] accrued.”].)

Also, consolidation is not appropriate when one of the cases proposed to be consolidated is not at-issue and there is no possibility that it will become at-issue. (Beaudreau v. Allen (1951) 102 Cal.App.2d 552, 557 [denying consolidation when there was “no showing that the Sanders’ action was or ever would be at issue . . .”].) Here, the post-judgment UD Action is no longer at-issue because a judgment has been issued. (D-RJN, Exh. C.)

And, the UD Action is post-judgment and fully concluded. There is nothing to stay in that case. To the extent Plaintiff is seeking a stay of the execution of the UD Action judgment, the UD Action Court and the Appellate Court have already denied Plaintiff’s requests for such relief. (D-RJN, Exhs. D, E.)

Finally, Plaintiff alternatively seeks a stay of the UD Action either under C.C.P. §1170.5 or by issuance of an injunction pursuant to C.C.P. §526, again based on the assertion that the two actions involve common questions of law and fact. (Motion at pgs. 5-6.) However, there is nothing to stay because the UD Action has concluded to judgment. Plaintiff’s request in the alternative is moot.

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court