Judge Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case Number: 24PSCV00137, Date: 2025-06-16 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 24PSCV00137, Date: 2025-06-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24PSCV00137 Hearing Date: June 16, 2025 Dept: 6

CASE NAME: Manuel Fernandez, trustee of the Pena Family Revocable Trust dated November 9, 2022 v. Shmuel Y. Mahgerefteh, et al.

Motion of Martha Pena to Consolidate Actions

TENTATIVE RULING

The Court GRANTS Martha Pena’s motion to consolidate actions. Case Numbers 24PSCV00137 and 25PSCV01099 are hereby consolidated and assigned to Department 6 in the West Covina Courthouse for all purposes, with Case Number 24PSCV00137 being designated as the lead case. All future documents must be filed under Case Number 24PSCV00137, and case numbers on subsequent filings should be reflected under the lead case.

Martha Pena is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling in both cases within five calendar days of this order.

BACKGROUND

This is a real property loan dispute. On January 12, 2024, plaintiff Manuel Fernandez, trustee of the Pena Family Revocable Trust dated November 9, 2022 (Plaintiff or Fernandez) filed this action against defendants Shmuel Y. Mahgerefteh (Mahgerefteh), Law Offices of Richard G. Witkin APC (collectively, Defendants) and Does 1 through 50, alleging causes of action for declaratory relief, unfair and unlawful business practice, injunctive relief, cancellation of instruments, rescission based on unconscionability, and accounting.

On May 21, 2025, Martha Pena (Pena), the plaintiff in Case Number 25PSCV01099, moved to consolidate Case Numbers 24PSCV00137 and 25PSCV01099. The motion is unopposed.

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).)

(a) Requirements of motion

(1) A notice of motion to consolidate must:

(A) List all named parties in each case, the names of those who have appeared, and the names of their respective attorneys of record;

(B) Contain the captions of all the cases sought to be consolidated, with the lowest numbered case shown first; and

(2) The motion to consolidate:

(A) Is deemed a single motion for the purpose of determining the appropriate filing fee, but memorandums, declarations, and other supporting papers must be filed only in the lowest numbered case;

(B) Must be served on all attorneys of record and all nonrepresented parties in all of the cases sought to be consolidated; and

(b) Lead case

Unless otherwise provided in the order granting the motion to consolidate, the lowest numbered case in the consolidated case is the lead case.

(c) Order

An order granting or denying all or part of a motion to consolidate must be filed in each case sought to be consolidated. If the motion is granted for all purposes including trial, any subsequent document must be filed only in the lead case.

(d) Caption and case number

All documents filed in the consolidated case must include the caption and case number of the lead case, followed by the case numbers of all of the other consolidated cases.

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350, bold in original.)

REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

The Court GRANTS Pena’s requests for judicial notice. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).) However, the Court takes judicial notice only as to “the existence, content and authenticity of public records and other specified documents”; it does not take judicial notice of the truth of the factual matters asserted in those documents. (Dominguez v. Bonta (2022) 87 Cal. App. 5th 389, 400.)

DISCUSSION

Summary of Arguments

Pena seeks to consolidate Case Numbers 24PSCV00137 and 25PSCV01099 on the grounds that both actions involve common questions of law or fact or arise under the same transaction or occurrence, and the issues of each case are the same such that consolidation would promote economy and convenience. Pena states that both actions involve the same real property located at 505 Lidford Avenue, La Puente, California 91744 (the Property). Plaintiff contends that she owns the Property and is suing Fernandez in Case Number 25PSCV01099 to clear title to the Property, while Fernandez is suing the Defendants in Case Number 24PSCV00137 concerning a mortgage foreclosure of the Property. Pena contends that the crux of Case Number 25PSCV01099 concerns Fernandez defrauding Pena into transferring title to the Property to Fernandez as trustee at a point in time when Pena was experiencing financial hardship and fell behind on mortgage payments, after which Fernandez took out a loan secured by the Property that Fernandez failed to repay. Pena seeks complete consolidation of these cases because they involve identical parties and arise out of the same transaction or occurrence surrounding the ownership of the Property and a note that has been taken out which Pena recorded on the Property.

Pena indicates that she filed Case Number 25PSCV01099 approximately one year after Case Number 24PSCV00137 was filed, and that she was never notified of Case Number 24PSCV00137. Pena contends the issues in both lawsuits concern the Property and disputes over who owns it, with Pena claiming ownership in her case and Fernandez claiming ownership in his case. Pena contends consolidation is proper here because otherwise there is a risk of inconsistent rulings concerning ownership of the Property. Pena also contends she has fully complied with the procedures for requesting consolidation under Rule 3.350 of the California Rules of Court.

Analysis

The Court finds Pena’s motion persuasive. Both cases have overlapping facts and parties, with Fernandez and the Property being the key links between the two cases. (Request for Judicial Notice, Ex. 1, pp. 5-6 of pdf, Ex. 2, pp. 52-53 of pdf.) Both Pena and Fernandez seek determinations that they are each the rightful owner of the Property. (Request for Judicial Notice, Ex. 1, p. 14 of pdf, Ex. 2, pp. 58-59 of pdf.) Given the directly conflicting ownership claims between Pena and Fernandez, consolidation would both promote efficiency and avoid the risk of inconsistent rulings. (See Todd-Stenberg v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Tr. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 976, 978-979.)

Moreover, Pena’s motion complies with the requirements of Rule 3.350 of the California Rules of Court by listing the appropriate parties, proper case information, and by filing in both cases. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350, subd. (a).) Pena also served the motion on all parties and provided proof of service with the motion. (Id., rule 3.350, subd. (b); Motion, pp. 10-11 of pdf.) Additionally, the Court construes the lack of oppositions as a concession that Pena’s arguments are meritorious. (D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, fn. 4 [where nonmoving party fails to oppose a ground for a motion, "it is assumed that [nonmoving party] concedes" that ground].)

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the motion.

CONCLUSION

Martha Pena is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling in both cases within five calendar days of this order.

Website by Triangulus