2018-00226569-CU-BC

Stephanie Kolberg vs. John Stewart Company

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Stay UD Action and Consolidate UD Action with this Action

Filed By: Shulman, Jacqueline L.

Plaintiffs Stephanie Kolberg et al.’s (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) motion to consolidate with this action and/or stay the unlawful detainer action filed against Angelina Boyce, and for an order precluding the future filing of an unlawful detainer action against any plaintiff in this action that is not based on non-payment of rent or a clear and intentional violation of Cal. Civil Code § 3479 is ruled upon as follows.

The opposition filed by Pamela C. Jackson on behalf of Preservation Southpoint, L.P.

is stricken.

Pursuant to CCP § 1048(a), “[w]hen actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.”

Plaintiffs move to consolidate Case No. 34-2018-00226569, filed on February 2, 2018, on behalf of approximately 52 current and former tenants (the “civil action”) who live(d) at 4390 E. 47th Avenue, Sacramento, California 95824 (“Saybrook”) and the unlawful detainer action filed against Angelina Boyce on October 19, 2018, which seeks to evict Ms. Boyce and her three minor children from their apartment at Saybrook. Saybrook provides Section 8 affordable housing to low income, homeless individuals and families living with physical or mental disabilities. In the civil action, the approximately 52 Plaintiffs allege nine causes of action relating to allegedly substandard housing conditions at the low-income housing complex.

Plaintiffs contend consolidation of the civil action and Ms. Boyce’s unlawful detainer action is warranted because Defendants filed the unlawful detainer action in retaliation for Ms. Boyce’s participation in the civil action and the only way to “control Defendants’ conduct is to restrict their rights to file unlawful detainer actions against any Plaintiff in this case.” Plaintiffs argue if the actions are not consolidated Defendants may file more unlawful detainer actions against the other plaintiffs in the civil action. Plaintiffs contend if Ms. Boyce is evicted she will lose her housing vouchers and return to homelessness. Plaintiffs also claim Ms. Boyce is entitled to raise defenses related to habitability and retaliatory eviction in the unlawful detainer action, but may be deprived of due process due to the shortened time frame in which unlawful detainer actions must be heard. Plaintiffs also imply that consolidation or a stay is appropriate because of issues surrounding Ms. Boyce’s execution of the lease and the applicability or legality of the House Rules she is alleged to have violated. Plaintiffs further raise issues regarding service of the unlawful detainer complaint and the 3-day notice upon which the unlawful detainer action is based. Despite the myriad reasons raised by Plaintiffs, none are a basis for consolidation or staying the unlawful detainer action.

Unlawful detainer is intended to afford an expeditious remedy for obtaining possession of premises wrongfully withheld. However, Asuncion v. Superior Court (1980) 108 Cal.App.3d 141 provides that a summary unlawful detainer action may not be suitable for trial of complicated ownership issues involving title. A consolidation may be particularly appropriate when an unlawful detainer proceeding and a civil action are simultaneously pending and both raise, for example, the same complex title issues. ( Martin-Bragg v. Moore (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 367, 385.) The Court may stay the unlawful detainer action or it may consolidate the actions. (Id.) Consolidation is one of the remedies the Asuncion court noted may be appropriate.

The civil action involves allegations regarding substandard housing conditions and the unlawful detainer action seeks to evict Ms. Boyce for violations of her lease, Section 8 rules, and housekeeping rules. Indeed, paragraph 27 of Ms. Boyce’s complaint concedes legal title to Saybrook is in the name of defendant Preservation Southpointe, L.P. Further, the Court is not persuaded that Ms. Boyce would be denied due process if the unlawful detainer matter proceeds. Ms. Boyce may raise issues of habitability and retaliatory eviction as affirmative defenses. (See, e.g. S.P. Growers Asso. v. Rodriguez (1976) 17 Cal. 3d 719, 723 [tenants have been permitted to raise a number of defenses in unlawful detainer actions, ranging from promissory fraud to a landlord’s failure to maintain an apartment in tenantable condition. In an unlawful detainer proceeding a tenant may interpose a defense that relates directly to the issue of possession. One such recognized defense is a plea that an unlawful detainer action amounts to a “retaliatory eviction.” It is settled that a landlord may be precluded from evicting a tenant in retaliation for certain kinds of lawful activities of the tenant. As a landlord has no right to possession when he seeks it for such an invalid reason, a tenant may raise the defense of retaliatory eviction in an unlawful detainer proceeding.].) Plaintiffs have failed to set forth any evidence explaining why Ms. Boyce would be unable to raise these defenses in the unlawful detainer action.

Courts have discretion to consolidate actions, including unlawful detainer actions, that involve a “common question of law or fact” whenever it can be done without prejudice. (C.C.P. 1048(a); see also Martin-Bragg v. Moore (2013) 219 C.A.4th 367, 384.) The Court finds, in the exercise of its discretion, that Plaintiffs have failed to show consolidation is warranted on the facts presented. Judicial economy and efficiency will not be served by consolidation as there is sufficient discrepancy between the legal and factual issues in the two actions. The civil action arises out of alleged substandard housing conditions, while the unlawful detainer action arises out of Ms. Boyce’s alleged violations of her lease, Section 8 Rules, and housing rules, and seeks her eviction. She may, of course, raise whatever defenses she deems applicable in the UD action. No complex title issues are involved as contemplated under Asuncion and Martin-Bragg. Accordingly, the motion to consolidate is DENIED.

Plaintiffs’ request that the unlawful detainer action be stayed pending conclusion of the civil action is also DENIED. Plaintiffs have not set forth a sufficient basis warranting a stay of the unlawful detainer action at this time. This denial is without prejudice to raising the request before the UD judge.

Plaintiffs’ request for an order precluding the future filing of an unlawful detainer action against any plaintiff in the civil action that is not based on non-payment of rent or a clear and intentional violation of Cal. Civil Code § 3479 is DENIED. Plaintiffs have failed to set forth any legal authority or basis warranting this extraordinary relief, in advance of any action being taken. Such prior restraint is unwarranted. The unlawful

detainer action is the only unlawful detainer action presently filed against any of the plaintiffs in the civil action and Defendants have set forth evidence that the unlawful detainer action was filed due to Ms. Boyce’s repeated violations of lease terms, which resulted in physical violence, property damage, excessive noise, and unsanitary conditions in her apartment.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.