Judge Michelle Williams Court, Case Number: 23STCV24643, Date: 2023-12-14 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 23STCV24643, Date: 2023-12-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV24643 Hearing Date: December 14, 2023 Dept: 1

23STCV24643 NORMA SALCEDA vs KELLY B. PELTON

Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Cases Related

TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Cases Related is GRANTED. Department 1 relates unlawful detainer case 23PDUD02724 with 23STCV24643. The Court orders 23PDUD02724 reassigned to Department 68 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse for all purposes. All hearings currently set in civil law case 23PDUD02724 are hereby advanced and vacated. Counsel for moving party to give notice.

Request for Judicial Notice

Defendant’s uncontested request for judicial notice of the parties’ lease agreement and various court filings is GRANTED. (Evid. Code § 452.)

Motion to Relate Cases

Standard

In the event that the pertinent judge under California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(h)(1) does not relate any of the cases set forth in a Notice of Related Case, Department 1 may relate the matters on noticed motion. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(h)(1)(D); LASC Local Rules, rule 3.3(f)(3).)

The Court Finds the Cases are Related

On October 24, 2023, Judge Douglas W. Stern issued an order finding 23STCV24643 and 23PDUD02724 were not related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is properly brought before Department 1. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(h)(1)(D); LASC Local Rule 3.3(f)(3).)

Cases are related when they (1) involve the same parties and are based on the same or similar claims, (2) arise from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact, (3) involve claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the same property, or (4) are likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a).) In the initial Notice of Related Case, Plaintiff indicated the cases were related based upon every ground enumerated in Rule 3.300(a), but in attachment 1h thereto Plaintiff only advocated for a stay of the unlawful detainer action.

In opposition, Defendant contends the motion should be denied based upon “a litany of legal defects,” referring to the merits of the action and the potential success of an eventual request to consolidate the actions. (Opp. at 7:18-10:23.) Defendant’s arguments regarding the merits of Plaintiff’s claims are premature and immaterial to the issue of relation.

The cases do not involve the same parties. The unlawful detainer action names Norma Salceda, M.D., Saint Ana Community Health Center, and all tenants as defendants and Salceda is the only Defendant who is also a party to the unlimited civil case. In the motion and reply, Salceda argues Saint Ana Community Health Center is not “a proper party” and Defendant contends she is named as a defendant, but “there are no allegations in the FAC against the Trust directly.” These are merits based arguments not properly adjudicated in the instant motion. The Court considers the parties as they are named. The cases also do not arise from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact. The unlawful detainer action arises out of Salceda’s alleged holdover after the expiration of a lease, whereas the civil action arises out of a series of alleged promises to Salceda regarding a transfer of the property.

However, the cases do involve title to and possession of the same property. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a)(3).) Generally, unlawful detainer proceedings only concern straightforward issues regarding the right to possession of disputed premises and the award of damages for any unlawful detention; therefore, issues regarding the property’s title cannot be adjudicated therein because unlawful detainer proceedings are designed to be summary proceedings. (Martin-Bragg v. Moore (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 367, 385.) In the unlawful detainer action, Pelton seeks to evict Salceda from the Pacoima property, where Salceda has allegedly been practicing medicine since 2001. In the civil action, Salceda asserts a contractual and equitable right to ownership of the Pacoima property, and thus possession thereof. If the civil action is established in favor of Salceda, it would defeat Pelton’s right to possession of the property and eliminate her standing to prosecute the unlawful detainer action. (Ibid. (“a successful claim of title by the tenant would defeat the landlord’s right to possession.”).) There is a risk of conflicting rulings regarding possession of, and title to, the Pacoima property if the cases are determined separately.

Where, as here, “an unlawful detainer proceeding and an unlimited action concerning title to the property are simultaneously pending, the trial court in which the unlimited action is pending may stay the unlawful detainer action until the issue of title is resolved in the unlimited action, or it may consolidate the actions.” (Martin-Bragg v. Moore (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 367, 385.) In the Los Angeles Superior Court, a party cannot request consolidation unless the cases are within the same department, (LASC Local Rules, rule 3.3(g)(1), which is achieved via an order relating the two cases. A single judicial officer should determine which of these remedies, if any, are appropriate under the circumstances.

The motion is GRANTED.