Martin Tejeda et al. v. Keith Seibert et al.

to rescind the sale of the Property. The Rescission action also includes claims related to another property located at 92612 Dunes Lane

CRC now moves to stay the UD action pending resolution of the Rescission action or alternatively, to consolidate the actions. Tejeda, individually and derivatively on behalf of Bradview LLC joins the motion. TT&G objects to the joinder on grounds Tejeda and Bradview LLC are not parties to the UD action, because the stay in the UD action does not permit them to intervene, and because the joinder was filed while the stay was in place. However, any party involved in any action to be consolidated may properly move to consolidate the cases, support, or oppose a motion to consolidate.

Here, Tejeda and Bradview LLC are parties to the Rescission. The stay in the UD action was imposed for the express purpose of permitting the Court to consider whether consolidation is appropriate. Further, Tejeda and Bradview LLC filed their notice of motion in compliance with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure § 1005. Accordingly, the objections are overruled and the joinder is granted.

TT&G’s evidentiary objections are also overruled. However, the Court notes it considers the evidence presented only for the purpose of determining whether there are common issues of law and fact that warrant consolidation. The Court does not consider the declaration from the truth of the facts asserted.

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 defeat the right of possession. (Martin-Bragg v. Moore (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 367.)

As set forth above, the Rescission action involves a dispute as to who holds title to the Property. TT&G’s right to possession of the Property depends on a finding that TT&G obtained Bradview LLC’s ownership interest in the property. If the sale of the Property is rescinded, it would defeat TT&G’s right of possession. The Court finds consolidation is appropriate because the actions involve common questions of law and fact as to whether TT&G is the owner of the Property and the resolution of those questions would defeat TT&G’s right of possession.

TT&G requests that if the actions are consolidate or stayed, that certain conditions be imposed on CRC. Specifically, TT&G requests CRC be required to pay rent of $12,000 per month, or to deposit such rent with the Court, to provide proof of insurance, pay utility bills, and to act to set this action for trial as soon as possible. In reply, CRC agrees to provide TT&G with proof of insurance, to pay all utility bills arising from its occupancy and use of the Property, and to take the necessary steps to set the Rescission action for trial as soon as possible. Based on the agreement of the parties, these requests are granted.

CRC also agrees to make monthly payments of the fair rental value into the Court’s escrow

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00326202-CU-BC-GDS: Martin Tejeda vs. Keith Seibert 07/19/2024 Hearing on Motion to Consolidate in Department 47

account. However, CRC proposes that the parties share the cost of an independent appraisal to determine the fair market value. As noted in TT&G’s opposition, the complaint in the UD action asserts the fair market value is $12,000 per month. (UD Complaint, TT&G’s RJN No. 8.) CRC’s answer in the UD action does not dispute this allegation (see Answer, TT&G’s RJN No. 9), nor did CRC present any evidence or argument in reply to explain why this amount does not accurately reflect the fair market value of the Property. Accordingly, the Court finds there is no factual dispute raised by the pleadings and no evidence to establish a fair market value of the Property of less than $12,000 per month. The Court will therefore order CRC to make escrow payments of $12,000 per month from April 7, 2023 until the conclusion of the action as a condition of consolidation.

The motion to conditionally consolidate is granted for pre-trial purposes and trial. The trial judge retains authority under Code of Civil Procedure § 598 to determine the manner and order of trial. If CRC fails to comply with the conditions, TT&G may move to sever the UD action.

Martin Tejeda, et al. v. Keith Seibert, et al. (Case No. 34-2022-00326202) 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 law and motion department assigned to the lead case to reschedule the hearings for any pending law and motion matters.

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-

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00326202-CU-BC-GDS: Martin Tejeda vs. Keith Seibert 07/19/2024 Hearing on Motion to Consolidate in Department 47

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.