Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 23STCV20599, Date: 2024-04-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV20599    Hearing Date: April 11, 2024    Dept: 68

Dept. 68

Date:  4-11-24

Case #: 23STCV20599

Trial Date: Not Set

TRANSFER & CONSOLIDATION

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, William Manuel

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, Cesar Segovia

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Transfer and Consolidate

SUMMARY OF ACTION

The subject action involves three parcels of property: 1724 S. Alma St., San Pedro, 1323 S. Dodson St., San Pedro, and 800- W. 1^st St., Los Angeles. Plaintiff William Manuel concedes title to the properties remains either jointly held or solely held in the name of defendant Cesar Segovia, but maintains a series of agreements between the parties supports claims legal title to all three based contributions to the properties by Plaintiff.

On August 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint for Quiet Title (three separate causes of action), Conversion, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, Replevin, Trespass to Chattels, and Breach of Contract. On October 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice of related cases with UDP2201396 (Segovia v. Manuel) and CVPS2301660 (Manuel v. Segovia). On October 16, 2023, the court declined to find UDP2201396 related to the instant case, 23STCV20599.

On November 29, 2023, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint for Quiet Title (three separate causes of action), Conversion, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, Replevin, Trespass to Chattels, and Breach of Contract. Defendant answered the first amended complaint on January 16, 2024.

RULING: Denied.

Evidentiary Objections: Overruled.

Plaintiff William Manuel moves to transfer Riverside Superior Court case, CVPS2301660, Manuel 28 v. Segovia, to Los Angeles County Superior Court, and consolidation of the actions. Plaintiff seeks a transfer of the action on grounds that the majority of the witnesses reside in Los Angeles County; the cases all share a common core of facts regarding the tort course of conduct by Defendant; and, concern over inconsistent factual findings and judgments. Defendant Cesar Segovia opposes the motion on grounds that the motion fails to comply with the procedural requirements for a transfer. Defendant maintains the motion constitutes an improper collateral challenge to the unlawful detainer action, whereby Plaintiff failed to raise any and all defenses regarding the claim to title. Defendant next challenges the evidentiary standard of proof. Plaintiff in reply reiterates the separately filed actions as a function of the locations of the properties, and seeks relief based on common questions of law and fact. Plaintiff denies any relevance to the unlawful detainer action.

The Riverside County case involves a property located at 2091 S. Ramits Way, Palm Springs. Manuel filed a complaint for quiet title on the property. Plaintiff concedes that the Riverside County quiet title action was necessarily filed there, due to the location of the real property. “Subject to the power of the court to transfer actions, the proper county for the trial of an action under this chapter is: (a) Where the subject of the action is real property or real and personal property, the county in which the real property, or some part thereof, is located.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 760.050, subd. (a).)

“Except as otherwise provided in Section 396a, if an action or proceeding is commenced in a court having jurisdiction of the subject matter thereof, other than the court designated as the proper court for the trial thereof, under this title, the action may, notwithstanding, be tried in the court where commenced, unless the defendant, at the time he or she answers, demurs, or moves to strike, or, at his or her option, without answering, demurring, or moving to strike and within the time otherwise allowed to respond to the complaint, files with the clerk, a notice of motion for an order transferring the action or proceeding to the proper court, together with proof of service, upon the adverse party, of a copy of those papers. Upon the hearing of the motion the court shall, if it appears that the action or proceeding was not commenced in the proper court, order the action or proceeding transferred to the proper court.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 396b.)

A plaintiff may move for retransfer based on the relied upon criteria. (Scribner v. Superior Court (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 764, 766.) A motion to transfer is governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 403: “A judge may, on motion, transfer an action or actions from another court to that judge’s court for coordination with an action involving a common question of fact or law within the meaning of Section 404.¿ The motion shall be supported by a declaration stating facts showing that the actions meet the standards specified in Section 404.1, are not complex as defined by the Judicial Council and that the moving party has made a good faith effort to obtain agreement to the transfer from all parties to each action.¿ Notice of the motion shall be served on all parties to each action and on each court in which an action is pending.¿ Any party to that action may file papers opposing the motion within the time permitted by rule of the Judicial Council.¿ The court to which a case is transferred may order the cases consolidated for trial pursuant to Section 1048 without any further motion or hearing.”

“Coordination of civil actions sharing a common question of fact or law is appropriate if one judge hearing all of the actions for all purposes in a selected site or sites will promote the ends of justice taking into account whether the common question of fact or law is predominating and significant to the litigation; the convenience of parties, witnesses, and counsel; the relative development of the actions and the work product of counsel; the efficient utilization of judicial facilities and manpower; the calendar of the courts; the disadvantages of duplicative and inconsistent rulings, orders, or judgments; and, the likelihood of settlement of the actions without further litigation should coordination be denied.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 404.1.)

A party filing for a motion to transfer and consolidate an action from another court must first make a good-faith effort to obtain agreement of all parties to the proposed transfer and consolidation. (California Rules of Court, rule 3.500, subd. (b).) The party must also submit a declaration stating facts showing that (1) the actions are not complex; (2) the moving party has made the good faith effort to obtain agreement from all parties; and (3) the moving party has notified all parties of their obligation to disclose to the court any information they have as to any other transfer motions. (Id. at subd. (c).)

Plaintiff submitted a declaration with proof of efforts to obtain a stipulation, and the basis of the motion. [Declaration of Marilyn Smith.] The court concurs that the quiet title actions and personal property claims are not complex.

While Plaintiff procedurally complied with the requirements, the court finds no logical or legally supported basis for a transfer of an action involving real property in Riverside County. The court declines to consider the unlawful detainer action. The prior court declined to deem the unlawful detainer action related to the subject action in its October 16, 2023, order. The Riverside County quiet title complaint was filed on November 29, 2023, after the denial of related cases to the unlawful detainer action. Whether any defenses over title were raised or waived at the time of the unlawful detainer constitutes argument beyond the scope of consideration for the instant motion. Neither party presents any record from the unlawful detainer action, and the court declines to speculate.

The court therefore denies the motion on grounds of insufficient legal support for transferring an action involving real property in another county. The court declines to consider unmade arguments. The court therefore also declines to consider the criteria for consolidation of cases. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048; Todd-Stenberg v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 976, 978; Fisher v. Nash Bldg. Co. (1952) 113 Cal.App.2d 397, 402.)

The motion is denied.

Plaintiff to give notice.