Case Name: ?? Aguilera v. Garcia, et al.
Case No.:??????? 2016-1-CV-293118
Motion by Plaintiffs to Consolidate This Action with Case No. 2016-1-CV-293928
On January 13, 2016, The Bank of New York sued Margarita Aguilera in an unlawful detainer action, Case No. 2016-1-CV-290072, seeking possession of 1661 Jessica Way, San Jose (?the Property?).? On February 22, 2016, a grant deed was recorded on the Property, transferring title to Tuan Anh Pham and Vi Tuong Thi Tran (collectively, ?Pham?).? Two days later, on February 24, 2016, Case No. 2016-1-CV-290072 was dismissed without prejudice.
A month later, on March 23, 2016, Aguilera and another plaintiff identified as ?Marco De La Rosa attorney-in-fact as individual? (collectively, ?Aguilera?), filed a 32-page complaint against The Bank of New York, Bank of America, and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (collectively, ?Mortgage Parties?), asserting eleven causes of action including quiet title.? It is difficult to discern from the sparsely pleaded quiet title claim exactly how Aguilera believes that she holds superior title. ?Aguilera did not name Pham as a defendant.
On April 14, 2016, Pham filed an unlawful detainer action, Case No. 2016-1-CV-293928.? On April 21, 2016, Aguilera filed this motion to consolidate the two pending actions on the ground that fairness precludes litigation of complex title issues in a summary proceeding such as an unlawful detainer action.? According to the declaration submitted in support of the motion, The Bank of New York received title to the Property by a foreclosure sale deed and then transferred the Property to Pham.?? (Declaration, at 24:27-25:3.)
In opposition filed May 5, 2016, Pham first questions whether Aguilera properly accomplished service of this motion on Pham.? The file contains a proof of service showing that on April 19, 2016, the motion was served by mail on Trinh Law which was at that time counsel of record for Pham in Case No. 2016-1-CV-293928.? A substitution of attorney was filed on April 29, 2016, substituting Pham representing himself, and another substitution of attorney was filed on May 4, 2016, substituting current counsel Mark Oto.? Thus, it appears that Pham was timely and properly served with the motion.
In late opposition filed May 16, 2016, Mortgage Parties asserted, without benefit of a declaration, that they were not served with the motion and that they only received it on May 13, 2016, from counsel for Pham.? Aguilera filed a proof of service showing that the Bank of New York was served with the motion by mail on April 20, 2016, but the court is not aware of a proof of service on the motion on Bank of America or MERS.? Thus, it does not appear that Bank of America or MERS were timely and properly served with the motion.? Accordingly, the court has considered the late opposition as to Bank of America and MERS.
On the merits, Aguilera relies on Martin-Bragg v. Moore (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 367, 385 (reversing unlawful detainer judgment where court erred in not consolidating pending quiet title action to resolve complex issues of title).? ?In that case, the occupant asserted that he and the claimant had been long-time domestic partners; the property had long been in his family; title was held by the occupant?s business partner and had been used as security for business loans; and that the business partner had transferred title to the claimant without receiving any payment, in trust as a business arrangement for the occupant?s benefit. ?The appellate court concluded that the trial court had failed to determine whether and how the occupant?s right to, and need for, time to prepare and to conduct discovery might be balanced with the claimant?s legitimate interest in achieving a prompt resolution.? (Martin-Bragg, supra, 219 Cal.App.4th at 391.)? However, the appellate court limited its ruling: ?We do not hold that trial courts must in all cases grant applications for consolidation of an unlawful detainer proceeding with a pending quiet title action, no matter how straightforward the issues, and no matter what the circumstances.? (Id., at 393.)
The record on this motion bears no resemblance to the record in Martin-Bragg, where both the pleadings and several days of trial testimony established the complexity of the title issues.? Here, the one declaration offered in support of the motion states only the conclusion of ?irreparable injury? but discloses no facts explaining why or how the title issues are complex or what discovery procedures not allowed in an unlawful detainer proceeding would be appropriate in this case.? (Declaration, at 24:21-26.)? Accordingly, Aguilera has failed to develop a record which would allow the court to evaluate and balance the factors set forth in Martin-Bragg, and therefore the motion is denied.