BERMUDEZ vs SN SERVICING CORPORATION

23CV000213: BERMUDEZ vs SN SERVICING CORPORATION, A BUSINESS ENTITY, et al. 11/03/2023 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 ZoomGov ID is: 16173813009. 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 fails to provide notice of the modifications to Local Rule 1.06 for motions pending before the Presiding Judge. All noticed motions in the Presiding Judge’s Department shall include the following information in the notice: “Local Rule 1.06 (A) is modified such that tentative rulings will be issued two days prior to the hearing date and the party requesting argument is required to provide notice to the Court and counsel of that request by noon the following day.” (Additional info available on the Court’s website at: https://saccourt.ca.gov/civil/presiding-judge-info.aspx.) Counsel for moving party shall contact all other parties and advise them of the modifications to the tentative ruling system for this motion.

The motion of Plaintiff Omar Bermudez (“Plaintiff”) to consolidate Omar Bermudez v. SN Servicing Corporation, et al. (Case No. 23CV00032) and US Bank Trust National Association v. Omar Bermudez-Urcuyo (Case No. 23UD0143) (“the UD Action”), or in the alternative, to stay proceedings is ruled upon as follows.

These actions regard the subject property located at 864 Oak Lane, Rio Linda, CA 95673 (the “Property”). Plaintiff argues that these cases fit squarely within Code of Civil Procedure section 1048 because each claim alleged in the underlying complaint and each claim brought by the Plaintiffs in the UD Action are based on the same allegations and common questions of law and fact, i.e., who holds title in the subject property. (Mov. P&A, p. 4: 17-21.) In this regard, Plaintiff argues that the November 4, 2022 trustee sale was void, and further, consolidation is appropriate to resolve the issues of title and right to possession through the civil action.

Defendants SN Servicing Corporation and Us Bank Trust National Association as Trustee of the Bungalow Series IV Trust (collectively “Defendants”) oppose the motion. Defendants argue, inter alia, that this is just another one of Plaintiff’s prolific efforts to delay foreclosure of the Property. Further, Defendants maintain that there are no common questions of law or fact between this action and the UD Action – that Plaintiff’s “convoluted theories” have no place in the UD Action, but even still, Plaintiff would not be able to unwind the foreclosure.

23CV000213: BERMUDEZ vs SN SERVICING CORPORATION, A BUSINESS ENTITY, et al. 11/03/2023 Hearing on Motion to Consolidate in Department 47

Unlawful detainer is intended to afford an expeditious remedy for obtaining possession of premises wrongfully withheld. However, Asuncion provides that a summary unlawful detainer action may not be suitable for trial of complicated ownership issues involving title. (Asuncion v. Superior Court (1980) 108 Cal.App.3rd 141, 147.) Consolidation is one of the remedies the Asuncion court noted may be appropriate. (Ibid.) Consolidation of a civil action and an unlawful detainer action is appropriate when the civil action involves a complex issue of title that would defeat the right of possession and cannot be determined in summary proceedings. (Martin- Bragg v. Moore (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 367, 385.) In this context, the Court may stay the unlawful detainer action or it may consolidate the actions. (Ibid.)

The court finds that consolidation is appropriate as the cases involve common parties, common facts, and common legal issues: including complicated questions regarding title. Consolidation will promote judicial efficiency and economy. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1048(a).)

Omar Bermudez v. SN Servicing Corporation, et al. (Case No. 23CV00032) 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. Any hearings in actions other than the lead case are VACATED. The parties shall contact the appropriate departments assigned to the lead case to reschedule any hearings that should be rescheduled.

In order to extend trial in an unlawful detainer action beyond the 20-day period set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 1170.5(a), it is necessary to follow the procedures set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 1170.5(c). That section provides that if the court finds that 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 the unlawful defendant to pay that sum into the court each month until conclusion of the action.

In lieu of a separate hearing on the Section 1170.5 issues, the parties are encouraged to confer with each other in order to seek a stipulation as to the proper amount of damages, if any, to be paid into court each month by the unlawful detainer defendant. If the parties reach a stipulation, they can submit it to the court in writing for approval obviating the need for a further hearing on Section 1170.5.

Defendants’ request for judicial notice are unopposed and GRANTED. In taking judicial notice of these documents, the Court accepts the fact of their existence, not the truth of their contents.

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV000213: BERMUDEZ vs SN SERVICING CORPORATION, A BUSINESS ENTITY, et al. 11/03/2023 Hearing on Motion to Consolidate in Department 47

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 Court’s 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 Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.