Case Number: BC633284 Hearing Date: March 15, 2018 Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

ONEWEST BANK N.A.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

JEFF DONOHUE, et al.

Defendants.

Case No.:

BC 633284

Hearing Date:

March 15, 2018

Hearing Time:

8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

THE COURT’S MOTION RE WHETHER THE MATTER SHOULD BE ABATED PENDING RESOLUTION OF THE PENDING APPEAL IN THE SECOND UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION

Background

Plaintiff OneWest Bank, N.A. (“OneWest”) filed a Complaint for ejectment, trespass, and unjust enrichment on September 8, 2016 (the “Complaint”) against Defendants Jeff Donohue (“Donohue”) and Richard Eyman (jointly, “Defendants”). The Complaint alleges that OneWest is the rightful legal owner of that certain real property located at 15 Misty Acres Road, Rolling Hills Estates, California 90274 (the “Subject Property”) and that Defendants have refused to vacate the Property and return possession of the Subject Property to Plaintiff.

Prior to this action, Donohue had already prevailed to judgment on two unlawful detainer actions brought by OneWest pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1161a(b)(3). The second unlawful detainer judgment is currently on appeal.[1]

Donohue filed a motion for summary judgment, or alternatively, summary adjudication as to each cause of action on the principles of res judicata and/or collateral estoppel. OneWest opposed. At the hearing on the motion, the Court ordered supplemental briefing regarding whether this matter should be abated pending resolution of the Second UD Action.

Discussion

Both parties agree that this action should not be abated pending the appeal of the Second UD Judgment.

Donohue submits that rather than abating this action, the Court should grant his motion for summary judgment and dismiss this action. According to Donohue, the First UD Action has preclusive effect because the same primary right is being litigated here as it was in the First UD Action: possession of the Subject Property. Abating this action pending the outcome of the appeal of the Second UD Judgment would essentially allow OneWest to continue to engage in improper claim splitting. On the other hand, the outcome of the appeal of the Second UD Judgment will not be affected by dismissal of this action. Donohue asserts that if the Second UD Judgment is overturned, OneWest will have the Second UD Action as a forum to litigate its claim of possession. If the Second UD Judgment is affirmed, then that ruling will be consistent with a ruling to dismiss the instant case.

OneWest submits that abating this action is not appropriate because the issue on appeal is a narrow one – whether the court erred in applying res judicata to the Second UD Action based on the finding that OneWest failed to satisfy its evidentiary burden in the First UD Action – and therefore, even if the Second UD Judgment is upheld on appeal, the First UD Judgment will have no preclusive effect as to the instant action. OneWest’s position is that neither UD Judgment pertains to the issue of title, unlike the instant action. OneWest further submits that if the instant case is resolved before the appeal, the appeal would simply become moot. Moreover, OneWest asserts that in the event the instant case is not resolved and the Second UD Judgment is overturned, the proper course of action would be to consolidate the Second UD action with the instant action.

Neither party has taken a position on (or briefed the issue of) the possibility that the Court of Appeal will issue a ruling that clarifies whether the First UD Action necessarily decided the issue of title, and if so, the impact thereof on a subsequent action where different proof is proffered. While it is true that “a judgment in unlawful detainer usually has very limited res judicata effect and will not prevent one who is dispossessed from bringing a subsequent action to resolve questions of title[,]” “[a] qualified exception to the rule that title cannot be tried in unlawful detainer is contained in Code of Civil Procedure section 1161a,” which provides for “a narrow and sharply focused examination of title.” ((Vella v. Hudgins (1977) 20 Cal.3d 251, 255.) “To establish that he is a proper plaintiff, one who has purchased property at a trustee’s sale and seeks to evict the occupant in possession must show that he acquired the property at a regularly conducted sale and thereafter ‘duly perfected’ his title.” (Ibid.; Code Civ. Proc., § 1161a, subd. (b)(3).) Accordingly, where an unlawful detainer action is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1161a, subdivision (b)(3), “title is at issue.” (Orcilla v. Big Sur, Inc. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 982, 1011.) The Court notes that the parties have staked their positions, in the summary judgment papers as well as the supplemental briefing, as to whether title was previously litigated. However, the Court also notes that in a situation where different actions arise from the “same transaction,” the rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction requires that the later action be stayed pending resolution of the earlier action. ((Plant Insulation Co. v. Fibreboard Corp. (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 781, 789.) The rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction is based on “the public policies of avoiding conflicts that might arise between courts if they were free to make contradictory decisions or awards relating to the same controversy, and preventing vexatious litigation and multiplicity of suits.” ((Plant Insulation Co. v. Fibreboard Corp., supra, 224 Cal.App.3d at pp. 787, 791.) Here, the Court finds that the instant action arises from the “same transaction” as the Second UD Action, namely, the foreclosure and subsequent sale of the Subject Property.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court, on its own motion, stays the proceedings in this action pending resolution of the Second UD Action. In its Supplemental Brief filed on February 22, 2018, at page 4, lines 24-27, OneWest indicated that the hearing on the appeal in the Second UD Action is set to be heard on March 22, 2018. The Court sets a status conference regarding the opinion in the Second UD Action on June 22, 2018 at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. 50.

OneWest is ordered to provide notice of this ruling.

DATED: March 15, 2018

________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet