Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 22SMCV01444, Date: 2022-10-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV01444    Hearing Date: October 20, 2022    Dept: R

The motion to consolidate is DENIED. 

First, the untimely reply, filed Monday, is STRICKEN.  No request to file a late brief was submitted and there is no explanation for the delay.  The opposition was timely filed.

The instant case is an unlimited civil matter.  The case with which plaintiff seeks consolidation is a UD case.  The point of consolidation is to slow down the UD case and have it move forward essentially as a regular case.  Thus, doing so has the effect of taking away the various statutory preferences given to such matters by the Legislature.  It is a proper tool, however, where the defendant in the UD case claims that the defendant is the true title holder.  Of course, a plaintiff in a UD case generally cannot evict the true title-holder from the property.  However, because there are limited defenses that can be asserted in a UD case and the time frames are so short, where a defendant in a UD case claims to be the property’s true owner the UD case is a poor vehicle to allow that claim to be litigated and tested.  Indeed, doing so over objection can rise to the level of a denial of due process.  Accordingly, when that is the case, the defendant’s remedy in the UD case is to file an unlimited civil case to establish rightful title and then bring a motion to consolidate the actions or to stay the UD action until the property’s title (or at least the defendant’s claim of ownership) can be decided in the normal course.  (Martin-Bragg v. Moore (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 367.)  That is what plaintiff here seeks to do.  Plaintiff filed the instant action and seeks to have it adjudicated before the UD case.

The problem is that plaintiff here is not asserting that she is the actual title holder.  To the contrary, she contends that she exercised an option to extend the lease and therefore the UD case must fail.  In other words, if the landlord is evicting the tenant because the lease expired, the action must fail if the lease has not in fact expired.  True enough.  But that can be raised in the UD case; there is no need to bring a separate action.

Plaintiff argues that whether she actually has a right of possession is too complex to be decided in the context of a summary UD proceeding.  The Court disagrees.  Ownership of property—title—is a unique type of action.  Depriving one of title to property in a summary proceeding with limited discovery is not appropriate.  But deciding what the terms of a lease are, or whether an option was properly extended, is different.  It is true that every case is (to some extent) unique.  But if the Court starts to create new categories of exceptions to the UD law, the exceptions will quickly swallow the rule.  This Court is confident that the UD judge has the ability to control the proceedings in the case to allow the necessary discovery here.  And if some tweaking to the UD schedule is in fact necessary to protect plaintiff’s due process rights, the UD judge can make those minor adjustments.  The Court believes that there is no basis for any general jurisdiction civil court judge to consider on the facts of any given case whether the Legislature’s policy decision giving UD cases priority is appropriate and there has been nothing remotely like a showing that constitutional due process is truly at issue in this case.  One could debate the Legislature’s UD policy choice—and there are policy arguments that can be legitimately made for and against.  But this is not the branch of government in which to have that discussion; the legislative branch—with its accountability to the people—is the branch constitutionally empowered to make those calls.

Plaintiff also seems to suggest that there is a probate issue that could complicate matters.  If there is a reason that the probate court must stay the case, then so be it.  But that is not a matter before this Court (it would be before the probate court).

The Court also notes procedural problems with the motion.  It does not appear that it was filed in the case plaintiff seeks to consolidate—22SMUD00230—which renders the request improper.

Accordingly, the motion to consolidate is DENIED.