Judge Timothy B. Taylor, Case 37-2023-00014010-CU-OR-CTL 2023-08-04 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Timothy B. Taylor, Case: 37-2023-00014010-CU-OR-CTL, Date: 2023-08-04 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - August 03, 2023

08/04/2023 01:30:00 PM C-72 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Timothy Taylor

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited Other Real Property Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00014010-CU-OR-CTL VIDRIO VS LOPEZ [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Consolidate Cases, 04/06/2023

Tentative Ruling on Motion to Consolidate Vidrio v. Lopez, Case No. 2023-14010 August 4, 2023, 1:30 p.m., Dept. 72 1. Overview and Procedural Posture.

This is a dispute between a mother and one of her daughters on the one hand, and a second daughter and a man named Lopez on the other hand, over ownership and possession of residential premises located at 8061 Jamacha Road. The plaintiff mother/daughter are in possession of the premises. They claim they and the other daughter bought the house together in 2015, and that they (plaintiffs) paid the 'mortgage.' They claim the defendant daughter later tricked them into signing a grant deed removing them from the chain of title. Their complaint for fraud and quiet title was filed April 5, 2023, shortly after a complaint in unlawful detainer was filed by Lopez (Case No. 2023-07168). There is no proof of service of the summons and complaint in the file.

Presently, plaintiffs seek to consolidate the UD action into this case.* ROA 10. The motion was initially set for today but was rescheduled for June 23, 2023. ROA 9, 12. However, just days before the motion was to be heard, defendants applied ex parte for a continuance. ROA 27, 30. The court granted the request, restored the motion to its original hearing date, and set a briefing schedule. ROA 26-27, 30.

Defendants, however, filed a very tardy opposition brief. ROA 37-38. Plaintiffs filed reply. ROA 41.

Nevertheless, the court has reviewed all the papers. No further submissions are permitted in connection with this motion.

The case is also set for a CMC. ROA 28-29.

2. Applicable Standards.

A. Code of Civil Procedure section 1048 'grants discretion to the trial courts to consolidate actions involving common questions of law or fact.' Todd-Stenberg v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 976, 978. However, it is possible that actions may be thoroughly 'related' in the sense of having common questions of law or fact, and still not be 'consolidated,' if the trial court, in the sound exercise of its discretion, chooses not to do so. Askew v. Askew (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 942, 964.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

2988619 49 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: VIDRIO VS LOPEZ [IMAGED] 37-2023-00014010-CU-OR-CTL CRC 3.350 sets forth procedural requirements for motions to consolidate.

B. Unlawful detainer actions are of limited scope, generally dealing only with the issue of right to possession and not other claims between the parties, even if related to the property. Larson v. City and County of San Francisco (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1263, 1297. 'Ordinarily, issues respecting the title to

the property cannot be adjudicated in an unlawful detainer action.' Martin-Bragg v. Moore (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 367, 385. Id. However, the trial court has the power to consolidate an unlawful detainer proceeding with a pending unlimited action when 'complex issues of title' to the property are involved.

Id.

3. Request for Judicial Notice.

Defendants seek judicial notice of the ROA in the UD case, the complaint in the UD case, and the answer in the UD case. ROA 38. Judicial notice is taken as requested. Evid. Code § 452(d).

'However, while courts are free to take judicial notice of the existence of each document in a court file, including the truth of results reached, they may not take judicial notice of the truth of hearsay statements in decisions and court files.' Lockley v. Law Office of Cantrell, Green, Pekich, Cruz & McCort (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 875, 882.

4. Discussion and Ruling.

The motion to consolidate is granted. The court finds that the parties' dispute involves the adjudication of 'complex issues of title' to property such that the Martin-Bragg exception applies. This civil action, as well as plaintiffs' answer to the unlawful detainer complaint in the UD action, allege facts that, if established, might entitle plaintiffs to quiet title to the property against defendants and therefore might defeat defendants' right to prevail in their unlawful detainer action. Thus, like the tenant in Martin-Bragg, defendants' right to unlawful detainer depends on the outcome of plaintiffs' quiet title claim, which cannot be made subject to unlawful detainer procedures.

Defendants concede that plaintiffs pled ownership as a defense, but contend that consolidation is not warranted here because plaintiffs admitted in their answer to being tenants. The court disagrees. First, ''a judicial admission is effective (i.e., conclusive) only in the particular case.'' Minish v. Hanuman Fellowship (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 437, 456. The alleged admission here was made in a paper filed in the UD action, not the present civil case. Second, the bare allegations in the answer regarding the Tenant Protection Act and the warranty of habitability are not admissions that plaintiffs are tenants, rather than owners, of the property. See Gelfo v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 34, 48 ('A judicial admission is a party's unequivocal concession of the truth of a matter[.]') (emphasis added).

Accordingly, Case No. 2023-14010 and Case No. 2023-07168 are consolidated for all purposes.

Although Case No. 2023-07168 is the lower numbered case, the court orders that Case No. 2023-14010 be designated as the lead case. CRC 3.350(b). All future filings must be submitted under the lead case number.

5. CMC.

The parties should be prepared to discuss the setting of the case for trial, as well as the status of service and a responsive pleading in the lead case.

______________________________ *According to the minutes in Case No. 2023-07168, when the UD case was called for trial on April 13, 2023, the parties informed the judge in Dept. 501 they had 'reached a settlement.' This was not correct; in fact, all they had agreed to do was stay the UD case until this court could decide the consolidation motion.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

2988619 49 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: VIDRIO VS LOPEZ [IMAGED] 37-2023-00014010-CU-OR-CTL Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

2988619 49