Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 22STCV35145, Date: 2022-12-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV35145    Hearing Date: December 19, 2022    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:         Motion for Order Relating the Unlawful Detainer Action and Civil Action and Assigning the Unlawful Detainer Action to the Civil Action Judge, and Staying the Unlawful Detainer Action or Consolidating the Actions

Moving Party:  Plaintiff Inna Ashchyan

Resp. Party:    Defendants Perry M. Bacino

Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.

BACKGROUND:

On November 4, 2022, Plaintiff Inna Ashchyan filed her Complaint against Defendants Frank M. Bacino and Perry M. Bacino on the following causes of action:

(1)       Imposition of Constructive Trust;

(2)       Imposition of Resulting Trust;

(3)       Fraud;

(4)       Quiet Title;

(5)       Nonpayment of Wages;

(6)       Waiting Time Penalties; and

(7)       Failure to Pay Minimum Wages and Overtime Compensation.

On November 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed her Notice of Related Case.

On November 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed her Motion for Order Relating the Unlawful Detainer Action and Civil Action and Assigning the Unlawful Detainer Action to the Civil Action Judge, and Staying the Unlawful Detainer Action or Consolidating the Actions.

On November 23, 2022, Defendant Perry Bacino filed his Opposition to the Notice of Related Cases.

On November 30, 2022, the Court issued its Minute Order, finding that this civil case (Aschyan v. Bacino, et al., 22STCV35145) and the recently-filed unlawful detainer case (Bacino v. Ashchyan, 22PDUD01977) are not related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300, subdivision (a).

On December 7, 2022, Defendant Bacino filed his Opposition to the Motion. Defendant concurrently filed his Request for Judicial Notice.

On December 12, 2022, Plaintiff filed her Reply.

ANALYSIS:

I.           Request for Judicial Notice

Defendant requests that the Court take judicial notice of the following exhibits:

(1)       Defendant Perry Bacino’s Peremptory Challenge;

(2)       Defendant Perry Bacino’s Opposition to the Notice of Related Cases, filed in both this case and the unlawful detainer case; and

(3)       Minute Order dated November 1, 2022 in the unlawful detainer action.

Judicial notice is DENIED as to the alleged peremptory challenge, no such filing has actually been made in this case. The Court has not received the alleged peremptory challenge; perhaps not surprisingly, the relevant exhibit in the Request for Judicial Notice does not have a filing stamp. (Parenthetically, even if the alleged peremptory challenge had been filed, a Request for Judicial Notice would not be necessary; any party that wishes to draw the Court’s attention to a matter filed in this action may simply cite directly to the document by execution and filing date. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(d).)) 

Judicial notice is DENIED as superfluous as to Defendant’s Opposition to the Notice of Related Cases filed in this case. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(d).)

Judicial notice is DENIED as to the filings made in the unlawful detainer action. As this Court has already ruled that the cases are not related, these fillings are irrelevant to the issues at hand.

II.                The Motion

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion. The Court has already found that this civil action and the unlawful detainer action in case number 22PDUD001977 are not related. (Minute Order dated November 30, 2022.) As the cases are not related, this Court has no jurisdiction to reassign the unlawful detainer action, stay the unlawful detainer action, or consolidate the unlawful detainer action with the present action.