Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 24STCV22032, Date: 2024-10-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV22032    Hearing Date: October 9, 2024    Dept: 34

Plaintiff Jabril Spencer’s Motion to Consolidate is DENIED.

 

Background

 

Plaintiff Jabril Spencer (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows:

 

On August 29, 2007, Plaintiff’s mother, Angela Cooper (“Cooper”), obtained title to a property located at 316 E. Stepney Street, #D, Inglewood, CA 90302 as its sole owner by Grant Deed recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office. On that same day, the Grant Deed was secured by a Deed of Trust in the amount of $311,200.00 held by Mortgageit, Inc. and recorded. A second Deed of Trust in the amount of $38,850.00 was recorded on behalf of trustee and beneficiary, Defendant First Horizon Home Loans (“Horizon”), and against Cooper secured by the property. A ballon payment of $30,375.82 on the second deed was due on September 1, 2022.

 

In early 2018, Cooper had a triple bypass surgery and passed away shoer after on February 21, 2018. Prior to her passing, Cooper ensured that payments on her mortgage were timely. As a result of his mother’s death and the death of the mother of Plaintiff’s daughter, Plaintiff experienced his own health issues and depression. Nevertheless, Plaintiff continued to make payments to Mortgageit and Horizon. In 2019, Plaintiff’s health issues worsened.

 

In January 2019, Plaintiff received bills from Rushmore Loan Management Services, LLC (“Rushmore”), servicer of the Mortgageit loan. In February of 2019, Plaintiff contacted both Mortgageit and Horizon to inform them of Cooper’s death and to determine how to make payments. In April 2019, Plaintiff sought legal advice and was advised to begin probate proceedings.

 

From January through December 2019, Plaintiff continued to make monthly mortgage payments from his own bank account.

In May 2020, Plaintiff tried to pay Rushmore $7,000.00 but the check was returned because Plaintiff was neither on the Grant Deed nor named on the mortgage.

 

In September 2020, Plaintiff attempted to initiate probate proceedings but was unable to due to the Covid-19 pandemic and Plaintiff’s health issues.

 

In 2021, Plaintiff continued to pay Horizon’s mortgage in the amount of $291.78 per month from Plaintiff’s bank account. However, on May 24, 2021, Plaintiff had heart surgery.

 

Plaintiff continued to make payments to Mortgageit and Horizon from September 2021 to September 2022.

 

On June 3, 2022, Plaintiff initiated probate of his mother’s estate.

 

On June 17, 2022, Mortgageit’s Deed of Trust was assigned to U.S. Bank Trust National Association (“U.S. Bank”). On August 30, 2022, U.S. Bank recorded a Substitution of Trustee naming Attorney Lender Trustee under the Deed of Trust.

 

By September 1, 2022, Horizon’s ballon payment became due. At that time, Plaintiff received a letter from the Department of Consumer and Business Affairs, stating that they could help stop a foreclosure initiated by Rushmore. On October 21, 2022, Plaintiff began a process with the Foreclosure Prevention Department of the Department of Consumer and Business Affairs.

 

On December 5, 2022, Notice of Trustee Sale was posted on the Subject Property II indicating a sale date of January 5, 2023. On December 13, 2022, Plaintiff authorized the Department of Consumer and Business Affairs to release is information to third parties. In late 2022 and early 2023, Plaintiff submitted successor in interest documents, birth certificate, death certificate, ID, court probate documents and bonds to the servicers of Mortgageit and Horizon mortgages.

 

On January 5, 2023, Plaintiff was finally able to pay Rushmore $193,000.00 to stop foreclosure and start making monthly payments again. Throughout 2023, Plaintiff attempted to contact Mortgageit and Horizon to discuss his mother’s estate and avoid foreclosure but was unable to reach them.

 

On March 14, 2023, a  Substitution of Trustee was recorded where Nationwide Reconveyance (“Nationwide”) substituted in for Horizon. Nationwide also recorded a Notice of Default in the amount of $27,051.67 on behalf of Horizon.

 

On June 13, 2023, another Notice of Trustee’s Sale was posted on the door of the property, indicating an August 3, 2023, sale date. On June 14, 2023, Plaintiff called Horizon to get an update on foreclosure and he was asked to submit a copy of the original deed and house value which Plaintiff emailed on June 26, 2023. On June 21, 2023, Nationwide recorded a Notice of Trustee’s Sale for an unpaid balance of $27,727.08 with an August 3, 2023, sale date.

 

Throughout June and July of 2023, Plaintiff remained in contact with Horizon to obtain information on the foreclosure of the property. On August 2, 2023, Plaintiff received Notice of Postponement of Trustees Sale to October 3, 2023. Throughout September and October 2023, Plaintiff remained in contact with Horizon to obtain information on the foreclosure of the property.

 

In November and December of 2023, Plaintiff sent documentation requested by the Foreclosure Prevention Department for Plaintiff’s mortgage payment assistance loan.

 

On January 2, 2024, Plaintiff inquired about the foreclosure and was told that it was postponed but no specific date was set.

 

On January 31, 2024, Plaintiff received a denial of his mortgage payment assistance loan application.

 

On May 2, 2024, a Trustee’s Deed of Sale was recorded, where Nationwide granted and conveyed the property without covenant or warranty to Homebridge which paid $60,500.00.

 

On August 28, 2024, Plaintiff filed a complaint asserting the following causes of action against Defendants Horizon, Homebridge, and Does 1-100 for:

 

1.               Wrongful Foreclosure;

2.               Cancellation of Written Instruments;

3.               Unfair Debt Collection Practices;

4.               Unfair Business Practices § 17200;

5.               Quiet Title; and

6.               Declaratory Relief.

 

On September 10, 2024, Plaintiff filed this Motion to Consolidate. On September 25, 2024, Homebridge and Horizon filed their individual oppositions to Plaintiff’s Motion. As of September 30, 2024, Plaintiff has not filed a reply to the oppositions.

 

Legal Standard

“When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a).)

A notice of motion to consolidate must:

(A) List all named parties in each case, the names of those who have appeared, and the names of their respective attorneys of record;

(B) Contain the captions of all the cases sought to be consolidated, with the lowest numbered case shown first; and

(C) Be filed in each case sought to be consolidated.

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a)(1)(A)–(C).)

“An order granting or denying all or part of a motion to consolidate must be filed in each case sought to be consolidated. . . .” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350(c).)

Under this court’s local rules, “[c]ases may not be consolidated unless they are in the same department. A motion to consolidate two or more cases may be noticed and heard after the cases, initially filed in different departments, have been related into a single department, or if the cases were already assigned to that department.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.3(g)(1).)

Discussion

 

Plaintiff moves the court to consolidate Unlawful Detainer case No. 24TRCV02115 (“UD Case”) with this present matter, or in the alternative, stay the UD Case and request for a temporary restraining order. (Motion to Consolidate, 2:11-14.)

 

Request for Judicial Notice

 

“A court may properly take judicial notice of its own records. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (e).)” (Garcia v. Sterling (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 17, 21.)

 

Plaintiff requests judicial notice of Plaintiff’s complaint filed in this matter. (Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice, 2:15-16, Exh. 1.)

 

Homebridge also requests judicial notice of (1) the complaint filed in the UD Case; (2) the answer filed in the UD Case, and (3) the “Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale” recorded on May 2, 2024. (Homebridge’s Request for Judicial Notice, 2:7-15, Exh. A-C.)

 

The court grants Plaintiff and Homebridge’s request for judicial notice. However, the court does not grant judicial notice of factual findings in the above documents. Factual findings in prior judicial orders, opinions, or decisions are not a proper subject of judicial notice. (Kilroy v. State of Calif. (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 140, 148.)

 

Merits

 

Plaintiff argues that this Motion is made on the grounds that there are common questions of law and fact regarding ownership of the property at issue in this matter. (Id., 2:15-26.) Plaintiff argues that since Plaintiff is the beneficial owner of the property, a successful claim of title in this action would render the UD Case moot. (Ibid.) Additionally, Plaintiff argues that the complex title issues involved cannot be appropriately address in the UD Case venue. (Ibid.) Thus, Plaintiff argues that consolidation of the actions is in the interest of justice and will promote judicial economy. (Ibid.) In the alternative, Plaintiff requests that the court stay the UD Case until Plaintiff’s claims as to title can be adjudicated. (Ibid.)

 

Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.350, Plaintiff names the parties named in the current case as follows:

 

Plaintiff is Jabril Spencer, represented by the Mansour Law Group, APLC. Defendants are First Horizon Home Loans, Nationwide Reconveyance, LLC, and Homebridge Management, Inc. Defendants have not yet appeared in this action. (Id., 2:27-28, 3:1-2.)

 

Plaintiff also lists the parties named in the UD Case as follows:

 

Plaintiff is Homebridge Management, Inc., represented by The Ryan Firm, APC. Defendants are Angela L. Cooper and Jabril Spencer. Mr. Spencer has appeared in the Unlawful Detainer action and is represented by the Mansour Law Group, APLC. Defendant Angela L. Cooper has not appeared and is deceased.” (Id., 3:3-6.) Plaintiff also provides the captions of all the cases sought to be consolidated. (Id., 1:1-28, 2:1-6.)

 

In opposition, Homebridge argues that Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied as it is procedurally defective because (1) the actions have not been ordered related by Judge Ronald F. Frank, judge for the earlier filed UD Case; (2) the actions are not in the same department; and (3) Plaintiff’s Motion was not filed in the UD Case. (Homebridge Opp., 1:10-26.) Additionally, Homebridge argues that Plaintiff’s Motion should also be denied on substantive grounds because (1) Plaintiff cannot challenge foreclosure as he was not the record owner or borrower under Homebridge’s loan at the time of sale; (2) consolidation would prejudice Homebridge by destroying the summary nature of the UD Case; (3) issues of judicial economy do not weigh in favor of consolidate; (4) there are no common issues of fact and law; and (5) the court cannot stay the proceedings of another department. (Id., 2:1-28, 3:1-14.)

 

Horizon also opposes Plaintiff’s Motion arguing that consolidation is not proper, Homebridge will be prejudiced by consolidation, Plaintiff must post sizeable bond to stay the UD Case, and tender is required since Plaintiff seeks equitable relief in the form of consolidating the actions. (Horizon Opp., 3:27, 5:8, 5:21, 6:11.)

 

Plaintiff has not filed a reply to either opposition.

 

Here, Plaintiff’s motion must be denied, as this matter and the UD Case have not been deemed related, have been sent to two different departments, and Plaintiff has not filed a motion to consolidate in the UD Case. Plaintiff has only filed a Notice of Related Case in the UD Case. But more importantly, the instant case concerns with damages related to the purported wrongful foreclosure action and not as to who is in rightful possession of the property.

 

Conclusion

 

Plaintiff Jabril Spencer’s Motion to Consolidate is DENIED.