Jennifer Flynn Adams, et al. v. The Bessemer Trust Co., et al.

(Santa Monica Courthouse: Dept. P) September 1, 2026 DEPARTMENT P LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

Ruling Jennifer Flynn Adams, et al. v. The Bessemer Trust Co., et al., Case No. 23SMCV01044 Plaintiffs' Motion to Consolidate Case No. 23SMCV01044 and Case No. 26SMUD00317 Hearing Date: September 1, 2026 Motion to Consolidate

On July 16, 2026, the Court related 26SMUD00317 ("UD action") to 23SMCV01044 ("Civil Action"), with the Civil Action as the lead case. This matter was originally assigned to Department 207 at the Beverly Hills Courthouse. On July 30, 2026, it was re-assigned to Department P at the Santa Monica Courthouse.

On August 7, 2026, Plaintiff moved to consolidate the UD Action and the Civil Action for all purposes. On August 18, 2026, Defendant Tara Broida filed opposition. On August 19, 2026, the other Defendants filed opposition. On August 24, 2026, Plaintiffs filed replies to both oppositions.

Consolidation of a UD action and a civil action involving complex title issues would improperly compromise the due process rights of those involved in the complex title dispute by forcing litigation within the summary procedures of a UD action. (Martin-Bragg v. Moore (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 367, 391-393)

The Court must weigh the rights and needs of the party asserting the complex title dispute against the UD plaintiff's right to a prompt resolution of the UD matter and arrive at a solution that would best preserve both parties' rights. Id. at 393 ("With or without consolidation of the cases, trial courts have available options to address plaintiffs' legitimate rights and need for protection from unjustified delay of the unlawful detainer proceeding, while still affording reasonable opportunities for discovery and to prepare for trial of complex issues relating to the property's title.

The trial court has discretion, for example, to sever and separately try the issue of title to the property, while assuring the availability of fair compensation to the plaintiff for any delay in acquiring possession. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1170.5, subd. (c) [court may order defendant to pay contract rent into court during delay of trial for defendant's benefit].")

Defendants' interests in resolving the civil issues after full discovery and an opportunity to properly prepare their case and Grozdich's interest in obtaining a prompt resolution of the UD action will be best preserved by denying the motion to consolidate.

Plaintiffs argue that the unlawful detainer case raises complicated possession and ownership disputes and habitability concerns. Though there are common issues, plaintiffs do not claim title to the property in either proceeding. There are other procedures available to Plaintiffs to ensure that issues better addressed in the civil action are not improperly addressed in the UD proceedings that do not destroy Grozdich's right to a prompt resolution of his UD action.

Plaintiffs also raise issues posed by the civil discovery protective order and stays on discovery in the civil action. These issues would only be exacerbated if the actions were consolidated. As it stands, discovery in the separate actions are separate matters.

Plaintiffs also ask the Court to order "coordinated case management," but do not explain what that means in practice. The parties should meet and confer to discuss and resolve such issues. If necessary, they can then move the Court for specific orders to resolve discovery disputes.

Plaintiffs' Motion to Consolidate is DENIED.

Case Number: 23SMCV01268 Hearing Date: September 1, 2026 Dept: P Tentative Ruling Gregory Hannley v. Howard Mann, Case No. 23SMCV01268 Plaintiffs' Motion for a Protective Order for Third Party Witness Namsis Loch Hearing Date: September 1, 2026

Background On March 23, 2023, Plaintiffs Gregory Hannley, Rick Darnell, Alex Draghici, Vivera Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Farah Barghi, Mali Saatchi, and Paul Edalat sued Defendants Howard Mann; Bruce E. Cahill; Robert C. Blaine; Federico Cabo; Blaine Laboratories, Inc.; Alternate Health Corp.; Alternate Health USA Inc.; Michael Murphy; Satish Dass; and Does 1-20 for (1) elder abuse; (2) defamation; (3) slander; (4) libel; (5) unfair competition; (6) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage; (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (8) civil extortion; (9) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (10) civil extortion.

After three amendments, the operative third amended complaint claims same ten causes of action against the same defendants, except Frederic Cabo. On March 26, 2024, The Court dismissed Cabo from this case and entered judgment in his favor. On November 25, 2024, Plaintiffs dismissed Defendant Michael Murphy.

On January 27, 2026, the Court held another IDC regarding Plaintiffs' allegedly deficient production of documents, and alleged spoliation. Cahill asserted that Plaintiffs failed to respond to his form and special interrogatories. At the IDC, Plaintiff accused the Blaine Defendants of witness tampering. The Court ordered Plaintiff to produce all responsive documents and respond to Cahill's Form and Special interrogatories.

The Court set an evidentiary hearing regarding Plaintiffs' allegations of witness tampering for May 22, 2026. After several continuances, evidentiary hearing was held on August 7, 2026. The Court found that the Plaintiffs' allegations of witness tampering were not credible. On