Judge: David J. Cowan, Case: 21STCV40908, Date: 2022-07-27 Tentative Ruling

Please notify Dept. 1’s courtroom staff by telephone (213-633-0601) no later than 8:30 a.m. the day of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion.  If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify the other side that you will not appear at the hearing.  If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motion.  Please keep in mind that appearing at the hearing and simply repeating the arguments set forth in the papers is not a good use of the court’s time or the parties’ time.
 

Case Number: 21STCV40908    Hearing Date: July 27, 2022    Dept: 1

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Jessica Jacobs v. Steven Ray Ritchie (21STCV40908); Jessica Jacobs v. Steven Ray Ritchie (21SMCV01059); Jessica Jacobs v. Steven Ray Ritchie (21SMUD00002)

On May 23, 2022, Jessica Jacobs filed a Notice of Related Case indicating unlimited civil cases 21SMCV01059 and 21STCV40908 are related to limited civil unlawful detainer case 21SMUD00002. On June 21, 2022, Judge Craig D. Karlan declined to relate cases 21SMUD00002, 21SMCV01059, and 21STCV40908.

On July 8, 2022, Jacobs filed, in Department 1, an Ex Parte Application to Expedite Trial Setting. On July 11, 2022, Ritchie filed an "Answer" to the Ex Parte Application "And....Motion to relate cases."  On July 11, 2022, Department 1 denied the Ex Parte Application to Expedite Trial Setting, indicating trial setting requests must be submitted to the judge assigned to the case. On July 12, 2022, Jacobs filed, in Department 1, a Motion to Relate Cases and an Ex Parte Application to Expedite Motion to Relate Cases. Ritchie filed an "Answer" to Jacobs' Ex Parte Application.

On July 14, 2022, at the hearing on her Ex Parte Application, Jacobs withdrew her Motion to Relate, and Ritchie indicated that his Answer to Jacobs' July 8, 2022 Application included a Motion to Relate Cases. Department 1 vacated the Ex Parte Application and set Ritchie's Motion to Relate for hearing on July 27, 2022. Department 1 ordered any opposition be filed by July 21, 2022 and any reply filed by July 25, 2022. The same day, Jacobs filed an Opposition to the Motion to Relate. On July 21, 2022, Ritchie filed another Motion to Relate.

Cases are related when they (1) involve the same parties and are based on the same or similar claims, (2) arise from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact, (3) involve claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the same property, or (4) are likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges. (CRC 3.300(a).)

The Supervising Judge of the Civil Division (sitting in Department 1) is authorized to hear a Motion to Relate Cases pertaining to cases “pending in the Central District or . . . pending in two or more different districts” whenever “the judge designated under [CRC] 3.300(h)(1)(A)(B)(C) to make the decision, does not order related any of the cases set forth in the Notice of Related Cases.” (Local Rule 3.3(f)(3); CRC 3.300(h)(1)(D).) Here, Jacobs filed a Notice of Related Case and Judge Karlan declined to relate the cases, which are pending in two or more districts (the Central District Stanley Mosk courthouse and the West District Santa Monica courthouse). (Local Rule 2.2(b).) Department 1 is authorized to consider the Motion to Relate Cases filed by Ritchie.

In order of filing, the cases sought to be related are: 

• Jessica Jacobs v. Steven Ray Ritchie (21SMUD00002) -- initiated on January 4, 2021 when Jessica Jacobs filed a Complaint against Steven Ray Ritchie stating a single cause of action for unlawful detainer of 1880 Old Topanga Canyon Road, Topanga, CA 90290.

On May 24, 2021, Jacobs filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) against Ritchie and Does 1-10 stating causes of action for unlawful detainer and forcible detainer.

On June 3, 2021, Ritchie filed a Demurrer and Motion to Strike the FAC.

On August 3, 2021, Judge Lisa K. Sepe-Wiesenfeld sustained in part and overruled in part Ritchie's Demurrer to the FAC. Judge Sepe-Wiesenfeld sustained the demurrer without leave to amend against the unlawful detainer claim, finding "numerous defects with the notice, proof of service, and validity of the alleged lease." Judge Sepe-Wiesenfeld granted leave to amend further facts regarding proof of service of a 5-Day Notice to Vacate, but indicated that Jacobs's "complaint will be dismissed, and she must begin the process again" if she failed to properly serve Ritchie. Judge Sepe-Wiesenfeld also granted leave to amend "to include a Forcible Entry cause of action if the facts support such a claim" and "to amend her Forcible Detainer cause of action."

On August 18, 2021, Jacobs filed a Second Amended Complaint against Ritchie and Does 1-10 stating causes of action for forcible detainer and forcible entry.

On August 23, 2021, Ritchie filed a Demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint.

On October 8, 2021, Judge Sepe-Wiesenfeld sustained Ritchie's Demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed the Amended Complaint without prejudice, finding that "continuing and contradictory allegations render the complaint vague, ambiguous and uncertain." Judgment was entered against Jacobs and in favor of Ritchie on October 21, 2022.

On October 25, 2021, Jacobs filed a Motion to Reconsider the October 8, 2021 Order.

On December 8, 2021, Judge Sepe-Wiesenfeld denied the Motion to Reconsider, finding Jacobs had "not supported her motion with an affidavit or presented new or different facts or law to support the Court's reconsideration of its ruling."

On January 10, 2022, Jacobs filed a Notice of Appeal from the December 8, 2021 Order.

On January 20, 2022, Jacobs filed a Motion to Reconsider the December 8, 2021 Order.

On March 2, 2022, Judge Sepe-Wiesenfeld denied the Motion to Reconsider, finding Jacobs failed to present “new facts, law or circumstances which provide this court a basis to reconsider its ruling.”

On May 5, 2022, the Court of Appeal dismissed Jacobs' appeal.

On May 12, 2022, Jacobs filed a Motion to Vacate Dismissal.

On May 23, 2022, Jacobs filed a Notice of Related Case indicating unlimited civil cases 21SMCV01059 and 21STCV40908 (erroneously listed as "SMCV40908") are related to limited civil unlawful detainer case 21SMUD00002.

On June 10, 2022, the Court of Appeal granted Jacobs’ request to vacate the order dismissing her appeal and reinstated her appeal.

On June 21, 2022, Judge Karlan declined to relate cases 21SMUD00002, 21SMCV01059, and 21STCV40908.

On June 27, 2022, Judge Sepe-Wiesenfeld denied the Motion to Vacate Dismissal "as moot," finding Jacobs' appeal divested the trial court of "jurisdiction to hear and decide the Motion . . . as the motion requests the very action embraced in [Jacobs's] appeal, the reinstatement of her case."

This case is pending in Department S of the Santa Monica courthouse. No hearings are currently scheduled, but Jacobs has an appeal pending from the December 8, 2021 Order.

·       Jessica Jacobs v. Steven Ray Ritchie (21SMCV01059) -- initiated on June 16, 2021 when Jessica Jacobs filed a Complaint against Steven Ray Ritchie and Does 1-10 stating causes of action for quiet title, trespass, nuisance, ejectment, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief concerning Ritchie’s possession of the Property.

On June 28, 2021, Judge Karlan entered a temporary restraining order prohibiting Ritchie and his associates from "entering the property" and ordering Jacobs "to stay off the property, except for the purpose of watering trees, no more than twice per week."

On August 26, 2021, Ritchie filed Cross-Complaint against Jacobs, John Dirschel, Lauren Ivester, and Does 1-20 stating causes of action for quiet title, trespass, nuisance, breach of contract, specific performance, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief. Ritchie also filed a lis pendens against the Property. Ritchie's Cross-Complaint alleges his romantic partner Ivester acquired the Property "in her name" in October 2019, but alleges Ritchie "contributed money towards the purchase of the Property." Ritchie and Ivester then executed a "Residential Lease Agreement" providing Ritchie a 20-year lease and "an option to purchase the Property through January 11, 2040." As consideration for the lease, Ritchie allegedly "assisted Ivester in developing" other real property.

However, on August 14, 2020, Ivester "surreptitiously" sold the Property to Jacobs and Dirschel "after seeing a photograph of [Ritchie] and another woman embracing." Ritchie alleges he "has exercised his option to acquire the Property" despite the sale, but alleges Jacobs and Dirschel have "harassed" and "threatened" him to interfere with his use of the Property. Ritchie seeks to quiet title to the Property, alleging Jacobs and Dirschel "bought the Property from Ivester subject to [the] option to purchase," and seeks specific performance of the option. Ritchie also seeks declaratory relief that he has "an exclusive right to possession" of the premises.

On September 23, 2021, Judge Karlan granted Jacobs's request for a preliminary injunction restraining Ritchie and his associates from entering the Property and authorizing Jacobs to access the Property for limited purposes. Judge Karlan did "not grant Jacobs the right to reclaim possession" of the Property because the "outcome of the unlawful detainer action [21SMUD00002] will resolve the issue of possession."

On October 19, 2021, Judge Karlan denied Jacobs's "renewed motion for a preliminary injunction," finding that "[t]itle to the property is not at issue in this action" because Ritchie merely "holds an option to purchase the property, but has not exercised that option." Judge Karlan explained that the validity of Ritchie's lease and entitlement to possession of the Property "will not be determined in this action" and indicated Jacobs "must bring either an unlawful detainer or a forcible detainer, whichever is legally appropriate" to regain possession.

On December 13, 2021, Judge Karlan denied another Ex Parte Application filed by Jacobs and a request for sanctions by Ritchie. Judge Karlan reiterated "for clarity" that Jacobs "MUST prevail either via her unlawful detainer, action for ejectment or forcible detainer" to "regain possession of the property Judge Karlan also "admonished" the parties that a pro per litigant may be deemed a vexatious litigant for "repeatedly fil[ing] unmeritorious motions, pleadings, or other papers, conduct[ing] unnecessary discovery, or engag[ing] in other tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay” under CCP sec. 391(b).

On January 28, 2022, Jacobs filed an Ex Parte Application for Judge to Recuse "respectfully request[ing] Judge Karlan to recuse himself for perceived bias against female self represented litigant."

On February 2, 2022, Judge Karlan issued an Order Striking Statement of Disqualification and Verified Answer, striking the January 28, 2022 Application on the grounds that it "discloses no legal grounds for disqualification for cause." Judge Karlan also issued an order denying Jacobs's Motion for Cancellation of Instrument filed July 12, 2021, finding Jacobs "had actual notice of the lease" before purchasing the Property and reiterating that "removal of [Ritchie] from possession of the property . . . should instead, if appropriate, be sought via an unlawful detainer action."

On April 26, 2022, Jacobs filed a Motion to File First Amended Complaint.

On May 3, 2022, Judge Karlan denied the Motion to File First Amended Complaint, finding the "motion was not timely filed," "fail[ed] to include proof of service," and "fail[ed] to meet the procedural requirements" of CRC 3.1324. Moreover, Judge Karlan concluded the proposed amendments lacked merit because the supporting factual allegations "are confusing and insufficient to support each of the causes of action identified."

On May 23, 2022, Jacobs filed a Notice of Related Case indicating unlimited civil cases 21SMCV01059 and 21STCV40908 are related to limited civil unlawful detainer case 21SMUD00002.

On June 21, 2022, Judge Karlan found cases 21SMUD00002, 21SMCV01059, and 21STCV40908 are not related.

This case is pending in Department N of the Santa Monica courthouse with the next hearing set for September 14, 2022 on a Motion to Compel Discovery Responses filed April 4, 2022.

·       Jessica Jacobs v. Steven Ray Ritchie (21STCV40908) -- initiated on November 5, 2021 when Jacobs filed a Complaint against Ritchie and Does 1-10 stating causes of action for forcible detainer "or, in alternative unlawful detainer, seeking to recover possession of the Property, forfeiture of Ritchie's lease, statutory damages for malicious possession, and attorneys' fees.

On April 21, 2022, Jacobs filed a First Amended Complaint against Ritchie and Does 1-10 stating causes of action for unlawful detainer and forcible detainer seeking to recover possession of the Property, forfeiture of Ritchie's lease, statutory damages for malicious possession, and attorneys' fees.

On May 2, 2022, Ritchie filed an Answer to the First Amended Complaint.

On May 23, 2022, Judge Teresa A. Beaudet ordered Jacobs to file a Notice of Related Cases "in any cases where both [Jacobs] and [Ritchie] are or have been parties including 21SMUD00002 and 21SMCV01059, but not the small claims or appellate case."

On May 24, 2022, Jacobs filed a Notice of Related Case indicating unlimited civil cases 21SMCV01059 and 21STCV40908 are related to limited civil unlawful detainer case 21SMUD00002.

On June 21, 2022, Judge declined to relate cases 21SMUD00002, 21SMCV01059, and 21STCV40908.

On July 6, 2022, Jacobs filed an Ex Parte Application to Expedite Trial Setting.

On July 7, 2022, Judge Beaudet denied the Ex Parte Application, noting the parties "indicate[d] that they each intend to file a motion with Department 1 to relate the two general jurisdiction cases" or assign a judge to conduct a trial because Judge Beaudet "is engaged in a preference trial through July 19, 2022."

On July 8, 2022, Jacobs filed, in Department 1, an Ex Parte Application to Expedite Trial Setting.

On July 11, 2022, Ritchie filed an "Answer" to the Ex Parte Application "And....Motion to relate cases." 

On July 11, 2022, Department 1 denied Jacobs’ Application to Expedite Trial Setting, indicating trial setting requests must be submitted to the judge assigned to the case.

On July 12, 2022, Jacobs filed, in Department 1, a Motion to Relate Cases and an Ex Parte Application to Expedite Motion to Relate Cases. Ritchie filed an "Answer" to Jacobs' Ex Parte Application later that day.

On July 14, 2022, at the hearing on Jacobs’ latest Ex Parte Application, Jacobs withdrew her Motion to Relate. However, Ritchie indicated that his Answer to Jacobs' July 8, 2022 Application included a Motion to Relate Cases and sought a hearing on that Motion. Department 1 vacated the Ex Parte Application and set Ritchie's Motion to Relate for hearing on July 27, 2022. Department 1 ordered Jacobs to file any opposition by July 21, 2022 and Ritchie to file any reply by July 25, 2022. Later the same day, Jacobs filed an Opposition to the Motion to Relate.

On July 21, 2022, Ritchie filed another Motion to Relate.

This case is pending in Department 50 of the Stanley Mosk courthouse with a Case Management Conference set for July 27, 2022.

Upon review, the Court finds the cases are related within the meaning of CRC 3.300(a)(2). Both cases arise out of “the same or substantially identical” events: Ritchie’s lease with Ivester executed after acquiring the Property in October 2019, Jacobs’ acquisition of the Property in August 2020, and Jacobs’ subsequent attempts to remove Ritchie from the premises. The cases will require determination of overlapping questions of law or fact concerning the circumstances of execution of Ritchie’s lease (which are apparently disputed by Ivester) and its validity, Jacobs’ awareness of Ritchie’s lease in acquiring the Property, Ritchie’s ability to exercise his option to purchase after Jacobs’ acquisition of the Property, whether Ritchie’s continued possession is “malicious” for purposes of statutory damages under CCP sec. 1174 (as sought in cases 21SMUD00002 and 21STCV40908), and damages stemming from Ritchie’s possession.

Further, the cases are related within the meaning of CRC 3.300(a)(3). All three cases involve claims for possession of the same real property. In civil case 21STCV40908, Jacobs seeks to recover possession of the Property in connection with her forcible detainer and unlawful detainer claims. In civil case 21SMCV01059, Jacobs seeks to recover possession of the Property in connection with her ejectment claim. Moreover, Ritchie seeks a conflicting determination that he has "an exclusive right to possession" of the Property. Finally, in civil case 21SMUD00002, Jacobs sought to recover possession of the Property in connection with her causes of action for unlawful detainer, forcible detainer, and forcible entry.

All three cases involve overlapping claims to possession of the premises. The "statutory purpose of unlawful detainer" is "a speedy determination of the right to possession, as distinguished from broader issues of title." (Gonzalez v. Gem Properties, Inc. (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 1029, 1034; Martin-Bragg v. Moore (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 367, 385 ("ordinarily the only triable issue is the right to possession of the disputed premises, along with incidental damages" in an unlawful detainer action)) Similarly, California’s “statutes defining forcible entry [cite] and forcible detainer [cite] reflect a policy, with deep roots in English law, barring the use of forceful self-help to enforce a right to possession of real property and requiring instead the use of judicial process to gain possession.” (Glass v. Najafi (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 45, 48-49.) In addition to unlawful detainer, forcible detainer, and forcible entry actions, a "common law action for ejectment" is an acceptable "procedure[] to retake possession of real property though such an action is not entitled to statutory preference under CCP sec. 1179a. (Rickley v. Goodfriend (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 1136, 1154.)

In sum, Jacobs’ claims of forcible detainer, forcible entry, unlawful detainer, and ejectment constitute overlapping claims to retake possession of the Property. Cases are related if they “[i]nvolve claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the same property.” (CRC 3.300(a)(3).) Judge Karlan previously declined to relate civil cases 21SMCV01059 and 21STCV40908 because “title is not at issue” in the former case, observing that Ritchie “merely possesses an option to purchase the property.” However, possession is at issue in all three cases, which is an adequate basis to relate the cases under CRC 3.300(a)(3).

Judge Karlan also observed that Jacobs’ statutory unlawful detainer and forcible detainer claims in 21SMUD00002 and 21STCV40908 would have trial preference over her other claims in 21SMCV01059. (See CCP sec. 1179a.) This supports the relation of cases 21SMUD00002 and 21STCV40908, which involve overlapping forcible detainer and unlawful detainer claims for possession of the same Property. Possession is also at issue in 21SMCV01059 due to Jacobs’ ejectment claim and Judge Karlan’s preliminary injunction restraining Jacobs and Ritchie from entering the Property (except under limited circumstances). Thus, all three cases should be related; this will mitigate the risk of conflicting rulings regarding Jacobs’ right to possession and the validity of Ritchie’s lease, which he relies upon to establish his right to possession.

Jacobs states in her Opposition that she does "not want[] to relate the cases due to the fact that Judge Karlan is scheduling cases for over a year from now and he has repeatedly told [Jacobs] to go to unlawful detainer court to determine possession." However, Jacobs does not explain how her interest in proceeding to trial as quickly as possible (as reflected by her several ex parte applications to expedite trial setting) is relevant to relation under CRC 3.300(a).

Moreover, it is unclear to the Court whether it would be proper to proceed to trial on Jacobs’ unlawful detainer and forcible detainer claims in 21STCV40908 while Jacobs’ appeal is pending from an order denying her motion to reconsider the order dismissing substantially identical claims in 21SMUD00002. Judge Sepe-Wiesenfeld’s June 27, 2022 Order denying Jacobs’ Motion to Vacate Dismissal concluded Jacobs’ appeal seeks “the reinstatement of her case.” It is not clear to the Court that it would be appropriate for Jacobs to proceed to trial on her updated forcible detainer and unlawful detainer claims where there is still some probability her earlier claims will be reinstated if she succeeds on appeal.

At minimum, relating the cases will ensure Jacobs’ overlapping claims are not pending before different judges. By extension, the judge handling the related cases will be well-positioned to determine when the overlapping claims are appropriately tried and when it would be appropriate to modify the existing preliminary injunction restraining the parties from the Property. Moreover, to the extent unlawful detainer and forcible detainer claims are entitled to statutory trial preference under CCP sec. 1179a, relation may enable the judge handling the related cases to bifurcate trial of the unlawful detainer or forcible detainer claims to determine the issue of possession on an expedited basis before addressing the parties’ other claims in 21SMCV01059. Thus, relating the cases will avoid unnecessary duplication of judicial resources in coordinating determination of overlapping issues across three courtrooms. (CRC 3.300(a)(4).)

Finally, Richie seeks a declaration that Jacobs is a vexatious litigant under CCP sec. 391(b). Ritchie asserts Jacobs "has filed about 50 frivolous petitions against [Ritchie] in order to evade honoring the contract/lease" and asserts the "petitions were meant to harass, embarrass, and cause high legal expenses for defendant." However, Ritchie’s reference to “50 frivolous petitions,” without more, is not sufficient to identify the relevant petitions or show that the petitions are frivolous or intended to harass or delay.

A prefiling order is an “extreme remedy” that should be entered only when it is clearly necessary to prevent abusive litigation. (Morton v. Wagner (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 963, 970-971 (prefiling orders are intended to address “the persistent and obsessive litigant who constantly has pending a number of groundless actions and whose conduct causes serious financial results to the unfortunate objects of his or her attacks and places an unreasonable burden on the courts”); see Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp. (9th Cir. 2007) 500 F.3d 1047, 1057 (prefiling orders "are an extreme remedy that should rarely be used" because "such sanctions can tread on a litigant's due process right of access to the courts.")) Ritchie has not sufficiently shown that Jacobs meets the statutory definition of a vexatious litigant under CCP sec. 391(b), and therefore has not shown a prefiling order needs to be entered. This order is without prejudice to a subsequent request to declare Jacobs a vexatious litigant, though such a request should be addressed to judges already assigned to Jacobs’ cases, who are necessarily more familiar with Jacobs’ litigation tendencies.

The Motion to Relate Cases is GRANTED. Department 1 finds civil cases 21STCV40908, 21SMCV01059, and 21SMUD00002 are related. Civil cases 21STCV40908 and 21SMUD00002 are reassigned to Department N of the Santa Monica courthouse for all purposes. Any hearings in civil cases 21STCV40908 and 21SMUD00002 are advanced and vacated, but may be reset as needed. Ritchie’s request to declare Jacobs a vexatious litigant is DENIED without prejudice.

Clerk to give notice.