Motion to Consolidate
24CV014904: SITORUS, et al. vs PURBA, et al. 12/13/2024 Hearing on Motion to Consolidate in Department 47
Tentative Ruling
NOTICE: If oral arguments are requested or appearances are required, the hearing may be conducted in person or remotely via ZoomGov [which includes telephonic and teleconferencing options]. No Court Call appearances will be permitted. If you choose to use Zoom you must use your first and last name on your ZoomGov account so the court can positively identify you. The Department 47 ZoomLink is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept47 and the ZoomGov ID is: 16173813009. Appearances via videoconference using the above link are preferred. To appear on ZoomGov by phone, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the ZoomGov ID referenced above, available phone commands include *6 to mute/unmute or *9 to raise your hand. If you experience issues joining your hearing, please contact the clerk in Department 47 at (916) 874-5487 for assistance.
The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Courts complete tentative ruling system for matters appearing on the Law and Motion in the Presiding Judges department. The notice of motion must include both the verbatim notice of the Courts general tentative ruling system and the verbatim notice of the modifications for matters pending before the Presiding Judge. (Local Rule 1.06(D)-(E).) Counsel for moving party shall contact all other parties and advise them of the complete tentative ruling system as modified.
The motion of Diana Sitorus and Poltak Sagala (Moving Parties) to consolidate Diana Sitorus, et al. v. Sarilinda D. Purba, et al., Case No. 24CV014904 (the Civil Action) and Sarilinda D. Purba v. Diana Sitorus, et al., Case No. 24UD002334 (the UD Action) is conditionally GRANTED.
Moving Parties failed to file the notice of motion in the UD Action. Defective notice deprives the Court of jurisdiction. (Lee v. Placer Title Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 503, 509.) However, the record in the UD Action indicates that action was stayed for the purpose of bringing a motion to consolidate. (UD Action Minute Order, 11/12/2024.) Further, the only other parties to the pending actions are Sarilinda D. Purba and Christopher Purba (collectively Purba). Purba waived the defects in notice by filing an opposition on the merits. (Carlton v. Quint (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 690, 696-698
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Consolidation of a civil action and unlawful detainer action is appropriate when the civil action involves complex issues of title that cannot be determined in summary proceedings and would
24CV014904: SITORUS, et al. vs PURBA, et al. 12/13/2024 Hearing on Motion to Consolidate in Department 47
defeat the right of possession. (Martin-Bragg v. Moore (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 367.) In the Civil Action Moving Parties seek to quiet title to real property. The Civil complaint alleges Moving Parties and Purba jointly purchased the real property. The Civil complaint alleges Purba secured a mortgage to finance the purchase, while Moving Parties provided the down payment, paid for closing costs, and have paid all maintenance, expenses, and taxes for the real property. Moving Parties allege they are equitable owners of the property, not tenants. Moving Parties argue their status as the actual owners of the property would defeat the right of possession and therefore request the Court consolidate the Civil Action and Unlimited Action.
Purba opposes the motion. Purba does not explain why the allegations of the Civil complaint, if true, would not defeat Purbas right of possession. Rather, Purbas opposition argues the evidence demonstrates Moving Parties are tenants, not owners, and will not prevail on the merits in the Civil Action.
The purpose of a motion to consolidate is not to determine the merits of the allegations and likelihood that the plaintiffs will prevail. The Court is satisfied that the Civil Action involves a complex issue of title that would defeat the right of possession and cannot be resolved in the UD Action.
The Court notes consolidation would extent the trial in the UD Action. In order to do so the procedures set forth in Code of Civil Procedure § 1170.5(a) must be followed. That section provides that if there is a reasonable probability that the unlawful detainer plaintiff will prevail in the case, the Court must determine the amount of damages the unlawful detainer plaintiff would suffer as a result of the extension and order defendant to pay that sum into the court each month until conclusion of the action.
The record in the UD Action indicates that in granting an extension of trial to facilitate a motion to consolidate, the Court previously determined Moving Parties were required to deposit $4,522 for a two-month extension to trial (covering December and January). Consistent with that ruling, the Court finds Moving Parties are required to deposit $2,761 with the Clerk of Court in Room 200 at the Carol Miller Justice Center each month as a condition of consolidation. As the order in the UD Action previously covered an extension for December and January, the first deposit shall be due February 1, 2025.
The parties are free to stipulate to alter this condition, including by waiving the deposit, modifying the amount, or requiring the deposit be paid directly to Purba rather than deposited with the Court. If the parties stipulate to alter the condition, the parties are directed to submit a
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
24CV014904: SITORUS, et al. vs PURBA, et al. 12/13/2024 Hearing on Motion to Consolidate in Department 47
proposed stipulated order for the Courts signature.
The motion to consolidate is granted on condition the monthly deposits or as otherwise agreed to by the parties in a stipulated order. Diana Sitorus, et al. v. Sarilinda D. Purba, et al., Case No. 24CV014904 shall be the lead case. The case management judge assigned to the lead case shall hear case management issues in the consolidated cases. The case management timelines applicable to the lead case shall govern all cases.
This case has been assigned to Department 47 for hearing. In the event that either party requests a hearing the matter will be heard at 9:30 a.m. in Department 47. Any party requesting an oral argument must contact the clerk at (916) 874-5487 and opposing counsel or parties in pro per by 12:00 p.m. on the day before the hearing. If a proper request for hearing is not made, this shall become the order of the Court.
Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government Code section 68086 and California Rules of Court, rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Courts Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list, Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk.
If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided.