17-CIV-04490 JOHN T. BOOTH, et al. vs. THE BANK OF NEW YORK

MELLON, et al.

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON JORDAN S. yu

John t. BOOTH eric STEINHAUER

Motion to consolidate

TENTATIVE RULING:

The Motion of Plaintiffs John T. Booth and Carolyn S. Booth to Consolidate is GRANTED. The issue of whether Defendant The Bank of New York Mellon (“Defendant”) holds valid title is a common question of law and fact between the unlawful detainer action in The Bank of New York Mellon v. Booth, et al., San Mateo Superior Court Case no. 17UDL00729, and this civil action. (See C.C.P. sec. 1048(a); see also Martin-Bragg v. Moore (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 367, 385, 391.) Both actions are to be tried in this action.

The order consolidating the cases is to be filed in each case sought to be consolidated. (Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.350(c).) All subsequent documents thereafter are only to be filed in this case. (Id.) All documents filed in this case must include the caption and case number of the lead case, followed by the case numbers of all other consolidated cases. (Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.350(d).)

In making this ruling, the Court has considered the timely opposition papers filed and served by Defendant on March 19, 2018, consisting of: (1) Declaration of Terri Brewer, (2) Declaration of Benjamin Cutchshaw, and (3) Request for Judicial Notice. (See also Defendant’s proof of service.)

The Court however, has not considered Defendant’s belated opposition memorandum filed on March 21, 2018. (See Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1300(d) [“If the court, in its discretion, refuses to consider a late filed paper, the minutes or order must so indicate.”].) The Court’s Order Shortening Time for this motion provided for opposition papers to be filed and served by March 19, 2018. It appears Defendant was clearly aware of this deadline since Defendant filed some timely papers in opposition. Moreover, Defendant provides no explanation for why its opposition memorandum was filed late. Additionally, there is insufficient time for the Court to consider Defendant’s 16-page opposition memorandum since it was filed only two days before the hearing. The Court is also unable to continue the motion to consider it in light of the unlawful detainer trial pending on March 26, 2018.