JOHL, AMANDEEP ET AL v. MUBARAKA, ADEL ET AL

10. 26CV00544 JOHL, AMANDEEP ET AL v. MUBARAKA, ADEL ET AL EVENT: Motion to Consolidate Cases “In unlawful detainer proceedings, ordinarily the only triable issue is the right to possession of the disputed premises, along with incidental damages,” and “[o]rdinarily, 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. The narrow power to consolidate exists because “a successful claim of title by the tenant would defeat the landlord’s right to possession.”

Ibid. Here, Plaintiffs do not claim to own the premises. Rather, the Complaint acknowledges that the Defendants own the property. [See Complaint at ¶28; Exh. 7]. The parties disagree only about how long Plaintiffs’ lease runs. A successful claim by Plaintiffs would not defeat the Defendants’ title — which should more properly be litigated in the unlawful detainer action. Issues of whether the lease expired, and whether an option to extend was validly exercised, are precisely the questions an unlawful detainer court resolves in summarily deciding the right to possession.

Therefore, consolidation pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §1048 is inappropriate here and the Motion is denied.

11. 26CV00555 YOUNG, CASEY v. KOMAS, TANYA EVENT: Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default The Court finds that Defendant Tanya Komas’ (“Defendant” herein) has satisfied the statutory requirements for relief under both the mandatory and discretionary relief provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §473(b) and Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default is granted. The Default entered on May 28, 2026 is set aside and Defendants shall file and serve her responsive pleading within 10 days’ from the date of this hearing.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §473(b), the Court awards to Plaintiff Casey Young reasonable compensatory legal fees and costs of $3,000, which are to be paid by Defendant’s counsel, Joh R. Garner, of Garner & Associates LLP, within 30 days’ from the date of this hearing. Counsel for the Defendant shall prepare and submit a form of order consistent with this ruling within two weeks.

12. 26CV01617 BEAR RIVER SUPPLY INC v. SHARMA, AMEET EVENT: Defendant’s Motion for Transfer of Venue The requested change of venue is not contested, Defendant’s Motion for Transfer of Venue is granted, and this matter is transferred to the Superior Court of California, County of Solano. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §399, the transfer fees and costs are to be paid by Plaintiff. In regard to attorneys’ fees, the Court in its discretion declines to award any such fees. The Court will utilize the form of order submitted by Defendant but will strike Paragraph 2. The Case Management Conference on November 4, 2026 is vacated and the matter is set for a Status Hearing on October 7, 2026 at 10:30 a.m. for status of transfer. 5|Page