Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 19STCV02403, Date: 2023-05-18 Tentative Ruling

The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.

Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.

Case Number: 19STCV02403    Hearing Date: May 18, 2023    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:         Motion to Sever/Bifurcate Trial of Equitable Causes of Action and Defenses

Moving Party:  Defendants/Cross-Complainants Rediger Investment Corporation and Olive Street Investors II, LP

Resp. Party:    Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Gunilla Gupta

Defendants/Cross-Complainants Rediger Investment Corporation and Olive Street Investors II, LP’s Motion to Sever/Bifurcate Trial of Equitable Causes of Action and Defenses is DENIED as moot.

BACKGROUND:

On January 25, 2019, Plaintiff Gunilla Gupta filed her Complaint against Defendants Rediger Investment Corporation, Olive Street Investors II, LP, Total Lenders Solutions, Inc., Vision Capital, and Julio Garcia. This action regards alleged fraudulent activities that Defendants engaged in regarding Plaintiff’s property.

On April 30, 2019, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint.

On August 28, 2019, Plaintiff filed her Second Amended Complaint.

On November 20, 2019, Plaintiff filed her Third Amended Complaint.

On January 8, 2020, Defendants Rediger Investment Corporation and Olive Street Investors II, LP filed: (1) Verified Answer to Third Amended Complaint; and (2) Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendants Gunilla Gupta, Raj Christopher Gupta, Julio Garcia, Vision Capital, and Abby A. Escobar.

On March 2, 2020, Cross-Defendants Gunilla Gupta and Raj Christopher Gupta filed their Answer to the Cross-Complaint.

On April 21, 2020, by request of Cross-Complainants, the Clerk’s Office entered default on Cross-Defendants Abby A. Escobar and Vision Capital regarding the Cross-Complaint.

On February 24, 2021, Plaintiff amended her Third Amended Complaint to substitute Doe 1 with Jose Garcia, Doe 2 with Vision Capital Inc., Doe 3 with Vision Capital LLC, Doe 4 with Margarita Garcia, and Doe 5 with UBS of California.

On June 4, 2021, by request of Plaintiff, the Clerk’s Office dismissed without prejudice Defendant Vision Capital, LLC from the Third Amended Complaint.

On October 12 and 14, 2022, the Court issued Orders for Publication regarding Julio Garcia, Margarita Garcia, and Jose Garcia.

On March 21, 2023, Defendants/Cross-Complainants Rediger Investment Corporation and Olive Street Investors II, LP (“Moving Defendants”) filed their Motion to Sever/Bifurcate Trial of Equitable Causes of Action and Defenses (“Motion”). Moving Defendants concurrently filed their Proposed Order.

On May 5, 2023, Plaintiff Gunilla Gupta (“Plaintiff”) filed her Opposition to the Motion.

On May 11, 2023, Moving Defendants filed their Reply.

ANALYSIS:

I.           Legal Standard

“The court may, when the convenience of witnesses, the ends of justice, or the economy and efficiency of handling the litigation would be promoted thereby, on motion of a party, after notice and hearing, make an order . . . that the trial of any issue or any part thereof shall precede the trial of any other issue or any part thereof in the case . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 598.) 

“The court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy, may order a separate trial of any cause of action, including a cause of action asserted in a cross-complaint, or of any separate issue or of any number of causes of action or issues . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (b).) 

II.        Discussion

a.          Quiet Title is an Equitable Claim

Moving Defendants request that the Court sever the quiet title and cancellation of instrument causes of action in Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint, as well as Moving Defendants’ equitable defenses thereto, and proceed to trial of these issues before any other matters. (Motion, p. 5:14–17.) Moving Defendants argue that this would be appropriate because these are the only remaining causes of action against Moving Defendants, and these causes of action are equitable claims that are not triable by jury. (Id. at p. 3:17–23.)

Plaintiff opposes the Motion, arguing (without citation to case authority) that Plaintiff is entitled to a jury trial on equitable issues. (Opposition, p. 5:7.)

Moving Defendants reiterate their argument in their Reply. Moving Defendants cite multiple authorities in support of their argument. (Reply, pp. 2–4.)

Plaintiff is incorrect; her arguments are frivolous.

“The right to a jury trial is guaranteed by the California Constitution, article I, section 7. This right is that existing at common law at the time the Constitution was adopted. Consequently, the jury trial is a matter of right in a civil action at law, but not in equity.” (S. Pac. Transp. Co. v. Super. Ct. (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 433, 436, citations omitted.)

A quiet title action is equitable. (Caira v. Offner (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 12, 25.)  Plaintiff does not even contest this in her opposition.  And despite Plaintiff’s arguments to the contrary, a quiet title action is tried to the Court. (See, e.g., Thomson v. Thomson (1936) 7 Cal.2d 671, 681.)  Plaintiff does not cite any authority for her assertion that she has a right to a jury trial on a quiet title action.  However, “an assertion is not evidence.”  (Paleski v. State Dept. of Health Services (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 713, 732.)

b.          The Moving Defendants are no longer Defendants in this Case

        While a quiet title cause of action is an equitable claim that is tried to the Court, there is no cause of action for quiet title in the operative Third Amended Complaint as to the moving Defendants.  In fact, there are no causes of action in the operative Third Amended Complaint against either of the two moving Defendants.  The first cause of action for Slander of Title is pled against Defendants Total Lenders Solutions, Inc., Vision Capital and Julio Garcia. (TAC, p. 6:23-24.)  The second cause of action for Quiet Title is pled against Defendants Vision Capital and Julio Garcia.  (TAC, p. 8:15-17.)  The third cause of action for Declaratory Relief is pled against Defendants Vision Capital and Julio Garcia.  (TAC, p. 10:2-4.)  The fourth cause of action for Cancellation of Written Instrument is pled against Defendants Vision Capital and Julio Garcia.  (TAC, p. 10:22-23.)  The first cause of action for Violation of the UCL is pled against Defendants Total Lenders Solutions, Inc., Vision Capital and Julio Garcia.  (TAC, p. 12:3-5.)

        Therefore, there are no causes of action in the operative Third Amended Complaint against the moving defendants, Rediger Investment Corporation and Olive Street Investors II, LP.  While various causes of action were pled against these defendants in the Complaint, the First Amended Complaint, and the Second Amended Complaint, these Defendants have been dismissed by the operative Third Amended Complaint.

III.     Conclusion

Defendants/Cross-Complainants Rediger Investment Corporation and Olive Street Investors II, LP’s Motion to Sever/Bifurcate Trial of Equitable Causes of Action and Defenses is DENIED as moot.