Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 24STCV02905, Date: 2025-01-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV02905    Hearing Date: January 16, 2025    Dept: 40

24STCV02905 Richard Bragg v. Louis A. Bragg

Thursday, June 16, 2025

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STAY THE UNLAWFUL DETAINER CASE (CASE NO. 24CMUD01555)

      This action arises from a dispute regarding ownership of real property located at 1458 243^rd Street in Harbor City. Plaintiff alleges he resided on the real property from 2007 to the present and paid all property taxes, maintenance, and upgrades associated with the property. Plaintiff alleges claims for quiet title based on adverse possession, unjust enrichment, declaratory and injunctive relief, and for a preliminary and permanent injunction.

      On December 2, 2024, the court denied Plaintiff’s request to relate this action to an unlawful detainer action pending in Department 7 of the South Central District (24CMUD01555). In that action, Saiful Islam and A. Nesa, LLC, bought the real property at issue and commenced an unlawful detainer action against Plaintiff. Plaintiff requests a stay of the unlawful detainer set for trial on December 9, 2024.

      In opposition, Defendant in the unlawful detainer action, A. Nessa, LLC argues that it bought the real property at issue at a foreclosure sale. The court in this matter determined that the unlawful detainer action was not related. There is no process that would permit this court to stay a proceeding of another court. If the court stays the unlawful detainer proceeding, Plaintiff should be required to pay the reasonable rental value of the subject property.

      In reply, Plaintiff disagrees with the court’s decision declining to relate the case.

      The court does not have jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer case. Nor has Plaintiff cited any authority giving this court authority to stay matters pending in another court in which it has no jurisdiction. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks an order for this court to reconsider its December 2, 2024, ruling, that request is DENIED as it does not comply with the procedural requirements of Code of Civil Procedure § 1008, which requires the motion to be made within 10 days of notice of the court’s ruling, and demonstrate that new or different circumstances, or law warrant reconsideration and modification of the court’s order.

      Finally, to the extent that Plaintiff believes that the Court erred by not relating the cases, Plaintiff could have filed a Motion in Department 1 seeking to relate the cases. (Los Angeles Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 3.3, subd. (f)(3).) 

      Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.