Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 22STCV36899, Date: 2023-03-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV36899    Hearing Date: March 22, 2023    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            This quiet title action was initiated in November 22, 2022. On December 28, 2022, Plaintiffs Phuong Le Thai and Edward Lee (Plaintiffs) filed the operative First Amended Complaint against Defendants Diana Lee, William Truong, and all persons claiming interest in the subject property. The FAC asserts causes of action for declaratory relief, quiet title, fraud, conversion, elder abuse, and accounting.

            Defendant Diana Lee (Defendant) is the plaintiff in a contemporaneous unlawful detainer action against Plaintiffs filed January 19, 2023 (UD action). The two cases were deemed related, with this action (22STCV36899) as the lead case. On January 31, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to consolidate this action with the UD action.

LEGAL STANDARD

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a).)  

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiffs argue that the summary proceedings involved in unlawful detainer are unsuitable for adjudicating complex issues of title and that their due process rights would be violated if they are forced to vacate pursuant to the UD action without an opportunity to litigate the title issues. (See Martin-Bragg v. Moore (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 367, 394.)

            The Court finds that consolidation would not be in the interests of judicial economy. Instead, the Court has discretion to determine the order in which issues are tried. (Code Civ. Proc., § 598; Royal Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Ranger Ins. Co. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 193, 205; Martin-Bragg, supra, 219 Cal.App.4th at p. 393.) In this case, issues pertaining to title should be tried before the UD action. If Plaintiffs are adjudicated to rightfully possess title to the property, Defendant’s UD action would necessarily fail, thus obviating a trial on the issue.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiffs’ motion for consolidation is DENIED. Issues pertaining to title shall be tried before issues pertaining to unlawful detainer.