Judge: H. Jay Ford, III, Case: 22SMCV00924, Date: 2022-10-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV00924    Hearing Date: October 6, 2022    Dept: O

Case Name:  Nulane Entertainment, LLC v. Notre Dame Properties Ltd. Liability Company, et al.

Case No.:                    22SMCV00924

Complaint Filed:                   6-17-22

Hearing Date:            9-20-22

Discovery C/O:                     None

Calendar No.:            9

Discover Motion C/O:          None

POS:                           OK

Trial Date:                             None

SUBJECT:                MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff Nulane Entertainment, LLC

RESP. PARTY:         Plaintiff MDRCA Properties LLC  

 

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiff Nulane Entertainment LLC’s Motion to Consolidate is GRANTED with the condition that Nulane deposit with the Court, or an agreed upon escrow or trust account all monthly rent MDRCA claims is due each month under the lease pending further order of the Court.  Nulane is to prepare the proposed order.

 

 

            As acknowledged in Martin-Bragg v. Moore (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 367, consolidation of a UD action and a civil action involving complex title issues would improperly compromise the due process rights of those involved in the complex title dispute by forcing litigation within the summary procedures of a UD action.  See Martin-Bragg, supra, 219 Cal.App.4th at 391-393.  The Court must weigh the rights and needs of the party asserting the complex title dispute against the UD plaintiff’s right to a prompt resolution of the UD matter and arrive at a solution that would best preserve both parties’ rights.  Id. at 393 (“With or without consolidation of the cases, trial courts have available options to address plaintiffs' legitimate rights and need for protection from unjustified delay of the unlawful detainer proceeding, while still affording reasonable opportunities for discovery and to prepare for trial of complex issues relating to the property's title. The trial court has discretion, for example, to sever and separately try the issue of title to the property, while assuring the availability of fair compensation to the plaintiff for any delay in acquiring possession. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1170.5, subd. (c) [court may order defendant to pay contract rent into court during delay of trial for defendant's benefit].”)

 

            Plaintiff Nulane is challenging MDRCA Proprties LLC’s right to possession in the UD action.  Nulane’s defense to the UD action is based on Nulane’s right to specific performance of the Residential Purchase Agreement.  Nulane argues MDRCA was not a bona fide purchaser and any right to specific performance would apply to MDRCA.  Complex issues of title and MDRCA’s right to possession cannot be litigated in the UD without prejudicing Plaintiff Nulane.

 

            MDRCA argues Martin Bragg is distinguishable, because the property had not yet been sold to a bona fide purchaser.  MDRCA argues the property has been sold already.  However, Nulane is challenging MDRCA’s status as bona fide purchaser.  If Nulane successfully establishes that MDRCA is not a bona fide purchaser, Nulane can obtain a decree of specific performance against MDRCA and Notre Dame.  “When the seller conveys title to a third party prior to the consummation of the transaction to the buyer, the buyer's right to pursue the remedy of specific performance depends on the status of the third party transferee. If the third party transferee is a bona fide purchaser, having paid value for the property without notice of the prior sales contract, the buyer cannot obtain a decree of specific performance, and the buyer's remedy is limited to an action for damages against the seller.  [¶]  However, if the third party transferee is not a bona fide purchaser, the buyer can obtain a decree of specific performance against the third party transferee.”  Miller and Starr (4th ed.) 12 California Real Estate §40:25

 

            For this reason, Martin Bragg is not inapposite, and its reasoning applies.  The actions are consolidated because they involve overlapping issues of law and fact.  Both actions address MDRCA’s right to possession.  Plaintiff Nulane’s Motion to Consolidate is GRANTED.  Plaintiff Nulane is ordered to deposit all outstanding rent and rent due into escrow pending resolution of this civil action for specific performance.