Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 24STCV23628, Date: 2025-01-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV23628    Hearing Date: January 29, 2025    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Plaintiff Gregorio Muñoz

RESPONDING PARTY:       Defendant Jose Luis Hurtado

Motion to Consolidate

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this motion.  

The court did not consider (1) the amended motion to consolidate filed on January 7, 2025 by plaintiff Gregorio Muñoz since it was not (i) filed at least 16 court days before the hearing on this motion and (ii) served at least 16 court days before the hearing on this motion, plus two calendar days for electronic service, or (2) the sur-reply filed on January 24, 2025, because defendant Jose Luis Hurtado was not authorized to file sur-reply papers.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b); Amended Mot., p. 10.)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff Gregorio Muñoz (“Muñoz”) moves the court for an order consolidating this action, filed on September 12, 2024 by Muñoz (the “Civil Action”) with the unlawful detainer action filed by Jose Luis Hurtado (“Hurtado”) on July 26, 2024 (Case No. 24STUD09291) (the “Unlawful Detainer Action”).

The court notes the following procedural defects with Muñoz’s motion to consolidate.

First, Muñoz did not file a notice of motion in the Unlawful Detainer Action as required.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.350, subd. (a)(1)(C) [“A notice motion to consolidate must: [¶¶] (C) Be filed in each case sought to be consolidated”].)

Second, Muñoz did not file a proof of service establishing that the motion to consolidate was served on all parties involved in the Civil Action and Unlawful Detainer Action as required.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.350, subds. (a)(2)(B) [“The motion to consolidate: [¶¶] (B) Must be served on all attorneys of record and all nonrepresented parties in all of the cases sought to be consolidated”], (a)(2)(C) [a proof of service must be filed as part of the motion].)  Muñoz has named as defendants in the Civil Action Complaint Hurtado, Angel Soto, and Jesus Trejo.  (Civil Action Compl., ¶¶ 2-4.)  The operative First Amended Complaint in the Unlawful Detainer Action names as defendant Angel Soto.  (Unlawful Detainer Action First Amended Complaint, ¶ 1.)  The proof of service attached to Muñoz’s motion states only that attorney John Levine—who is identified to be counsel of record for Hurtado in Hurtado’s capacity as plaintiff in the Unlawful Detainer Action—was served with the pending motion to consolidate.  (Mot., p. 10 [proof of service]; Not. of Mot., p. 2:20-22.)  Muñoz did not file a proof of service establishing that he served the motion to consolidate on (1) Civil Action defendants Angel Soto and Jesus Trejo, and (2) Unlawful Detainer Action defendant Angel Soto.

            Third, even if Muñoz had complied with rule 3.350, the court finds that Muñoz has not shown that he is entitled to the relief requested in the notice of related case and the motion to consolidate because the circumstances presented do not support relation and consolidation of the Unlawful Detainer Action and Civil Action. 

            “‘In unlawful detainer proceedings, ordinarily the only triable issue is the right to possession of the disputed premises, along with incidental damages resulting from the unlawful detention.’”  (Coyne v. De Leo (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 801, 817.)  “However, the trial court has the power to consolidate an unlawful detainer proceeding with a simultaneously pending action in which title to the property is in issue.”  (Martin-Bragg v. Moore (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 367, 385.)  Thus, “[w]hen 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.”  (Ibid.)  

            The court recognizes that both actions involve the same parties, and that some causes of action involve the same lease agreement.  However, the court finds that those causes of action do not present complicated issues of title or ownership.  Specifically, the Civil Action does not “concern[] title to the property” at issue in the Unlawful Detainer Action, and instead asserts that Muñoz has a valid lease for the rental of the premises.  (Martin-Bragg, supra, 219 Cal.App.4th at p. 385; Civil Action Compl., ¶¶ 13-15, 25, 41-43.)  The Unlawful Detainer Action also does not seek adjudication of title issues.  (Unlawful Detainer First Amended Complaint, ¶ 19, subds. (d), (e), (g) [seeking to recover attorney’s fees, forfeiture of the agreement, and damages].)

Further, although Muñoz alleges causes of action for fraud and unfair competition, those causes of action are not based on issues of ownership of the property, or Muñoz’s lease to rent the property, and instead are based on the alleged conduct regarding the sale of the business name Florence Auto Paint.  (Civil Action Compl., ¶¶ 54-55 [alleging that the defendants falsely represented to Muñoz that they would sell the business name and concealed that they would resume using the name once they received $240,000 from Muñoz], 70 [alleging that damages “include the $240,000 received by Defendants as part of the fraudulent sale of the business name”]; Asuncion v. Superior Court (1980) 108 Cal.App.3d 141, 144 [“It is generally recognized that the summary unlawful detainer action is not a suitable vehicle to try complicated ownership issues involving assertions of fraud and deceptive practices”].)  Similarly, although the conspiracy cause of action alleges, generally, that the defendants conspired to defraud Muñoz and deny him the benefits of the contract, “including the peaceful enjoyment of the Premises[,]” the only specific factual allegation of fraud concerns the alleged conduct in making false representations to Muñoz regarding the sale of the business name.  (Civil Action Compl., ¶¶ 59, 54 and pp. 1:27-2:1.)  The court also notes that, although the sale of the business name appears to have been part of the lease agreement, Muñoz has expressly alleged that “[t]he sale of the business name constitutes a separate and unique contract contained within the two-part ‘Purchase, Sale and Rental Contract[,]’” such that the complicated fraud and unlawful competition claims relating to that contract are unrelated to possession of the property that is the subject of the Unlawful Detainer Action, irrespective of the fact that it was included in the lease agreement.  (Civil Action Compl., ¶¶ 14-15, 18 , 47.)  

            Thus, for the reasons set forth above, the court exercises its discretion (1) to rule on Muñoz’s Notice of Related Case, filed on October 2, 2024, by ordering that Case Nos. 24STCV23628 and 24STUD09291 shall not be related, and (2) to deny Muñoz’s pending motion to consolidate those two actions.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rules 3.300, subd. (h) [the court “may order that the cases . . . be related”] [emphasis added], 3.350; Code Civ. Proc., § 1048.)

ORDER

            Th court rules on Gregorio Muñoz’s Notice of Related Case, filed on October 2, 2024, by ordering that Case Nos. 24STCV23628 and 24STUD09291 shall not be related. 

The court denies plaintiff Gregorio Muñoz’s motion to consolidate those two actions.

            The court orders defendant Jose Luis Hurtado to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  January 29, 2025

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court