Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Melanie Kleine Hillmann  

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Andreas Christian Renner 

BACKGROUND 

This action arises from a dispute over ownership of a home located at 11540 Barman Avenue, Culver City, CA 90230 (the “Property”).  Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Malanie Kleine Hillman and Defendant/Cross-Complainant Andreas Christian Renner were in a relationship when they bought the Property.  Title to the property was taken in Renner’s name alone.  Kleine contends the parties orally agreed the Property belonged to both equally.  Based on this agreement, Hillman paid half of the mortgage each month as well as one half of the homeowner’s insurance and property taxes.  Once the relationship ended, Renner took the position that Hillman was not an owner of the Property and was entitled to reimbursement only for what she paid towards the Property.   

On November 8, 2022, Hillman filed the instant civil action against Renner alleging various causes of action relating to her alleged ownership interest in the Property.  The operative complaint asserts six claims for (1) breach of express pooling agreement, (2) breach of implied in fact pooling agreement, (3) fraud, (4) quiet title, (5) breach of fiduciary duty, and (6) constructive trust.   

Renner cross-complained alleging breach of oral agreement and promissory fraud, claiming the parties had orally agreed that if the relationship ended and the Property was sold, Hillman would only be reimbursed for amounts she paid towards the property, excluding living expenses.  Further, on May 30, 2023, Renner filed an unlawful detainer action (“UD Action”) seeking to evict Hillman from the Property.  The UD action is currently pending in Department S.     

On July 25, 2023, Hillman filed a notice of related case in this civil action and in the unlawful detainer action.  On July 31, 2023, the Court in Department S determined the cases were not related within the meaning of Cal. Rule of Court Rule 3.300(a).   

This hearing is on Plaintiff’s motion to stay the UD Action or in the alternative, to consolidate the cases.  Plaintiff argues the UD action should be stayed because she would not be afforded due process if her claims of ownership are litigated in the summary UD proceedings.  Alternatively, Plaintiff seeks to consolidate the UD action with her civil action because she claims they share common questions of fact and law, and absent consolidation, there will be a risk of duplicative litigation and inconsistent rulings.   

 

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE  

Plaintiff requests that the Court take judicial notice of (1) the complaint filed in the UD Action, (2) the July 31, 2023 order finding the UD action and Civil Action were not related, and (3) rulings in other Los Angeles Superior Court cases on motions to consolidate and/or stay.  In turn, Defendant asks that the Court judicially notice Plaintiff’s answer filed in the UD action.  The Court grants both requests pursuant to Evid. Code §§ 452(d) and 453.  

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE  

“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(a).)  “Ordinarily, consolidated actions may be determined by a single set of findings and a single judgment [and] ‘the allegations of the various complaints may be taken together and treated as one pleading.’” (McClure, on Behalf of Caruthers v. Donovan (1949) 33 Cal.2d 717, 721-22.)  

The decision to consolidate is entirely within the Court’s discretion. (E.g., Todd-Stenberg v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 976, 978-979.)  Thus, “it is possible that actions may be thoroughly ‘related’ in the sense of having common questions of law or fact, and still not be ‘consolidated,’ if the trial court, in the sound exercise of its discretion, chooses not to do so.” (Askew v. Askew (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 942, 964.) 

Regarding unlawful detainer cases specifically, “[T]he 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.” (Martin-Bragg v. Moore (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 367, 385; see also Wilson v. Gentile (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 759.) 

Unless the parties stipulate to consolidate cases, a noticed and written motion to consolidate is required. (CRC 3.350.)  A motion to consolidate requires that the parties in each case be listed and that a notice of consolidation be filed in all cases to be consolidated. (Id.) Additionally, “[c]ases may not be consolidated unless they are in the same department.  A motion to consolidate two or more cases may be noticed and heard after the cases, initially filed in different departments, have been related into a single department, or if the cases were already assigned to that department.” (LASC 3.3 (emphasis added).) 

As a procedural matter, the two actions, Case No. 22MUD01246 and Case No. 22SMCV0224, have not been related. These actions are currently being heard in different departments and, therefore, the motion to consolidate is procedurally defective.  On this basis alone, the Court denies the motion to consolidate.    

 

MOTION TO STAY  

Staying the unlawful detainer action is an appropriate alternative to consolidating two cases. “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.” (Martin-Bragg v. Moore, 219 Cal.App.4th at 385.) 

As with consolidation, however, a stay would require that both actions were before this Department.  Otherwise, the Court would have no jurisdiction to issue orders on a case not before it.   

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

Plaintiff should have sought reconsideration of the notice of related case prior to filing her motion for consolidation or to stay.  The motion for reconsideration must be brought before the same judge that issued the order that is the subject of the motion.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 1008.)   

 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for a stay of the UD action or in the alternative for consolidation of the UD and civil actions.     

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED: September 28, 2023 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court