Document for George, Sheena vs. Meritage Homes of California, Inc

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                SUPERIOR       COURT      OF  CALIFORNIA,       COUNTY       OF  PLACER



                     Date:  October  2,2020                                   Time:  8:30  AM
                     Judge:  Michael  W. Jones                                Dept.: LM
                     Reporter:                                                Clerk:



                  George,  Sheena  vs.Meritage   Homes   ofCalifornia, Inc                             CL] Present



                                                                                                       (_] Present

                  _] And  related  Cross Action(s)                            Case #  S-CV-0042872

                                                               Law  and  Motion   Minutes

                  Proceedings    RE:  Motion:  Consolidate  -

                  (J  Dropped.               L]  Continued  to_____    [] by  Plaintiff[]  by  Defendant
                                                                                   J  by  Stipulation  [] by  Court
                  (J Matter  argued  and  submitted.

                  J  Submitted   on points  and authorities  without  [] argument    [] appearance.
                  C  Motion/Petition   granted.     [_] Motion/Petition  denied.
                  [-]Demurrer    [] sustained   [J overruled    [] without   [-]with  leave to [] amend    (_]answer.
                  (J Counsel  appointed   for:
                  (_]Taken   under  submission.

                  (]  Debtor  issworn  and  retired with counsel  for examination.
                  C  Stipulation  to [_]Judge Pro  Tem   [_]Commissioner    executed  in open  court.
                  [] Counsel   for       to prepare  the written  order and  submit  itto opposing  counsel  for approval  as
                     tocontent  and  form.

                  [_]Other         .

               \   fire   tentative  ruling isadopted  as the ruling of the court, towit:

                           Defendant      Bank    of  New   York    Mellon’s     request     for   judicial      notice     is


                           granted.




                           Defendant      Bank    of  New   York    Mellon     (“BONY”)     moves    to  consolidate        (1)


                           Placer    County     Superior      Court    Case   No.   SCV-41493,       Wl  Holdings,       et  al   vs.


                           Bank    of  New   York    Mellon,     et  al   (“the    Taylor    action”),       (2)   Placer    County




                                             AA
                                                  ~                                                am

                           Superior     Court    Case    No.   SCV-42872,      Sheena     George     vs.  Meritage      Homes    of

                           California,       Inc.,    et  al   (“the    George    action”),      and    (3)   Placer    County


                           Superior     Court    Case    No.   SCV-43149,      Wl   Holdings,      et  al   vs.   Deutsche      Bank

                           AG,   et  al   (“the    Wl  action”),      for   all   purposes      including      trial.




                           The  motion     is   denied.




                          A   complete     consolidation        may   be   ordered     where    the   parties     are   identical


                           and   the   causes    of   action    could    have    been   joined.       Hamilton      v.  Asbestos


                           Corp.,    Ltd.    (2000)    22   Cal.4th     1127,    1147-1148.        Parties     who   have


                           appeared     in   either    action     are   then   subject     to   the   court’s     jurisdiction


                           in  the   merged     action.      Id.     Here,    each   case    to  be   consolidated       has   a


                          different       plaintiff.        Plaintiff      in  the   Taylor     action    is   Anne   Taylor,

                           current     occupant     of   the   subject     property,      who   alleges     claims    of


                           trespass,      invasion     of   privacy,     violation      of   Government      Code    section

                           12955.7,     slander     and   intentional       infliction       of  emotional      distress.


                           Taylor’s     claims     stem   from    alleged     actions     of  defendants       after    she   moved

                           into   the   property.        Plaintiff      in  the   George     action    is   Sheena    George,      a

                           former    owner    of   the   property,      who   alleges     claims    including      negligence,


                           fraud,    breach     of  contract,      rescission       and   quiet    title.      George’s      claims


                           stem   from    representations         made   or   omitted     in  connection       with    her


                           purchase     of   the   property     in   2003.    Plaintiffs      in   the   Wl  action     are   Wl

                           Holdings     and   Donald     Hubbard,     who   allege     claims    of   non-disclosure,

                           fraud,    UCL   violations       and   quiet    title,    based    on   alleged     ownership


                           interests      which    arose    after    Sheena    George     conveyed      her   interest     in   the


                           property.       These     claims    stem    from   representations         made    or  omitted     in
                                                  ~                                                 _

                           connection      with    defendants’       attempts      to  sell    the   property     after     it  was


                           foreclosed      on.




                           The   cases    also    involve     different      defendants.       The   court    notes    that


                           BONY’s    notice     of  motion     fails    to   comply    with    California      Rules    of   Court,


                           rule   3.350(a),      as   it  does    not   list    all  parties      in  each    case.     In   the

                           Taylor    action,     the   named     defendants      are   BONY,    Stone    Canyon     Estates

                           Homeowners      Association        and   John   Tidgewell,      all    of  whom    have   appeared.

                           In  the   George     action,     only   BONY,    Mortgage      Electronic       Registration


                           Systems,     Inc.    and   Merscorp      Inc.,   all   of   whom    are   represented       by  the


                           same   counsel,      have   appeared.        However,     the   complaint       names    10  other

                           defendants,       including      Stone    Canyon    Estates     Homeowners       Association,        with

                           no  indication       that   these    defendants       have   been    served     with   the

                           complaint.        In  the   Wl   action,     only   BONY,    Bayview      Loan   Servicing,       LLC


                           and   Bayview     Mortgage     Services,      all   of   whom   are    represented       by  the   same


                           counsel,     have    appeared.       However,      the   complaint      names    18   other


                           defendants      with    no  indication       that   these    defendants       have    been   served

                           with   the   complaint.




                           In  short,     the   three    actions     involve     four   different       plaintiffs,       over   30


                           different      defendants,       and   35  different      causes     of   action    stemming      from


                           different      events    occurring       over   the   course    of   many    years.      While    there


                           is  some    factual     overlap     in   the  three    cases,     BONY    fails    to  demonstrate

                           that   consolidation        would     lessen    the   burden     on  the   court    or   the   parties


                           to  the   three    actions.        To  the   contrary,      it   appears     to  the   court    that


                           consolidation        would    unnecessarily        complicate       the   issues    before     the
                                                  ~                                                 ae
                           court,     and   prejudice      defendants       in  the   Taylor     action    and    other

                           defendants       who   have    not   yet   appeared.