This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/27/2021 at 06:00:43 (UTC).

RUTH E. FALLANI VS BORIS URENA

Case Summary

On 03/01/2021 RUTH E FALLANI filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against BORIS URENA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Compton Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is THOMAS D. LONG. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******0041

  • Filing Date:

    03/01/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

THOMAS D. LONG

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

FALLANI RUTH E. AKA RUTH E MOSQUERA

Defendant

URENA BORIS

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Other Attorneys

ROSIAK RICHARD

 

Court Documents

Notice of Case Management Conference

3/3/2021: Notice of Case Management Conference

Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT

3/1/2021: Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT

Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

3/1/2021: Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

Complaint

3/1/2021: Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet

3/1/2021: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Proof of Personal Service

3/30/2021: Proof of Personal Service

Answer

4/12/2021: Answer

Notice - NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT

7/6/2021: Notice - NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT

Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

6/29/2021: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

Case Management Statement

9/8/2021: Case Management Statement

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)

9/8/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)

Declaration - DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY MAIL

9/8/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY MAIL

Notice - NOTICE OF COURT HEARINGS

9/10/2021: Notice - NOTICE OF COURT HEARINGS

Motion to Consolidate

9/24/2021: Motion to Consolidate

Other - - OTHER - EVIDENCE

11/17/2021: Other - - OTHER - EVIDENCE

3 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/09/2022
  • Hearing05/09/2022 at 09:00 AM in Department A at 200 West Compton Blvd., Compton, CA 90220; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/02/2022
  • Hearing05/02/2022 at 09:00 AM in Department A at 200 West Compton Blvd., Compton, CA 90220; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/02/2021
  • Hearing12/02/2021 at 09:00 AM in Department A at 200 West Compton Blvd., Compton, CA 90220; Hearing on Motion to Consolidate

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2021
  • DocketOther - (Evidence); Filed by Boris Urena (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2021
  • DocketPLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE UNLAWFUL DETAINER CASE (21CMUD00337) WITH THE CIVIL CASE; Filed by Ruth E. Fallani (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/10/2021
  • DocketNotice (of Court Hearings); Filed by Ruth E. Fallani (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department A, Thomas D. Long, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2021
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by Boris Urena (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2021
  • DocketDeclaration (of Service by Mail); Filed by Boris Urena (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/06/2021
  • DocketNotice (of Case Reassignment); Filed by Ruth E. Fallani (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/29/2021
  • DocketNotice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2021
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Boris Urena (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/30/2021
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by Ruth E. Fallani (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/03/2021
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2021
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Ruth E. Fallani (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2021
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Ruth E. Fallani (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2021
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Ruth E. Fallani (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2021
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 21CMCV00041 Hearing Date: January 12, 2022 Dept: A

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – SOUTH CENTRAL DISTRICT

RUTH E. FALLANI aka RUTH E. MOSQUERA,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

BORIS URENA, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: 21CMCV00041

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

Dept. A

DATE: January 12, 2022

TIME: 8:30 A.M.

COMPLAINT FILED: March 1, 2021

TRIAL DATE: May 9, 2022

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges that she owns real property located at 7356 Walnut Avenue in Paramount. Defendant, Boris Urena, was previously married to Plaintiff, but the parties divorced in 2009. Pursuant to a judgment of dissolution, Defendant signed a Grant Deed on 4/23/09 transferring all interest he had in the property to Plaintiff. On 2/17/12, Plaintiff transferred the property to the Ruth E. Mosquera Revocable Trust by way of a Grant Deed.

On 9/8/20, Plaintiff alleges that she mistakenly transferred the property, granting an interest to her daughter, Vivian Urena, as intended, but also to her ex-husband, Defendant Urena. Plaintiff discovered the error when she tried to list the property for sale. Defendant refused to correct the deed and grant his interest back to Plaintiff and their daughter. Plaintiff alleges claims for (1) quiet title, (2) declaratory relief, and (3) for the Clerk of the Court to Sign All Necessary Documents to Effectuate Transfer.

After Plaintiff filed this civil action, Defendant filed an unlawful detainer action on 7/1/21 bearing Case No. 21CMUD00337 against Defendants, Erika Fuentes, Rigoberto Fuentes and Litzy Bailon, with respect to the same residential real property at issue in this quiet title action. In the unlawful detainer matter, Urena alleged that Erika Fuentes was his ex-partner. Urena served a 60-day notice to quit against all three Defendants. The unlawful detainer action is pending in Department 7 of the Compton Courthouse.

In the unlawful detainer action, the Hon. Victor M. Acevedo heard and granted Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on October 15, 2021, in favor of Defendants, Erika Fuentes and Litzy Bailon, and against Plaintiff, Boris Urena. (The remaining defendant, Rigoberto Fuentes, defaulted on August 30, 2021). The court also vacated the jury trial in that case.

On January 7, 2022, Plaintiff, Ruth Fallani, filed a Notice of Related cases in both Department 7 and Department A of the Compton Courthouse to relate this civil action to the unlawful detainer action.

II. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE THE UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION WITH THIS QUIET TITLE ACTION FILED 9/24/21

Plaintiff argues that Urena, who claims ownership of the real property at issue, is attempting to evict Erika Fuentes from the property. Plaintiff does not wish to evict her. Plaintiff contends that her quiet title action should be heard first to determine ownership before the unlawful detainer action can commence, which will avoid a second trial based on the same facts.

The court’s file does not reflect that Defendant was served with the motion. However, on December 2, 2021, when the court originally heard this matter, Defendant appeared. The matter was continued to this date to accommodate Defendant’s request for a Spanish language interpreter.

III. LEGAL STANDARDS

The decision to consolidate is a matter for the court’s discretion. Muller v. Robinson (1959) 174 Cal. App. 2d 511, 515. Cases cannot be consolidated unless they are pending in the same department and have been related. CA ST CIVIL RULES Rule Rule 3.300.” CA R LOS ANGELES SUPER CT Rule 3.3(g)(1).

A pending civil case is related to another pending civil case, or to a civil case that was dismissed with or without prejudice, or to a civil case that was disposed of by judgment, if the cases: “(1) Involve the same parties and are based on the same or similar claims; (2) Arise from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact; (3) Involve claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the same property; or (4) Are likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges.” CA ST CIVIL RULES Rule 3.300.

Consolidation is appropriate if the cases involve common questions of law or fact and consolidation will avoid unnecessary costs and delay or the necessity of two trials.

Code Civ. Proc., 1048.

IV. DISCUSSION

As previously stated, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Related Case in this action and the unlawful detainer action on January 7, 2021. While both cases involve the same real property, they do not involve the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact between substantially the same parties. The quiet title action involves the determination of title as between Plaintiff Fallani and Defendant Urena. The unlawful detainer action involves the determination of Urena’s right to possession of the real property against three tenants or occupants who are not involved in the quiet title action. Moreover, while one Defendant, Rigoberto Fuentes, has defaulted, Judge Acevedo granted summary judgment in the remaining favor of the remaining Defendants. Given these substantial differences, the court declines to relate the cases. Consolidation is inappropriate for the same reasons.

V. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate is denied.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

DATED: January 12, 2022

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court

b'

Case Number: 21CMCV00041 Hearing Date: December 2, 2021 Dept: A

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

\r\n\r\n

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – SOUTH CENTRAL DISTRICT

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n
\r\n

RUTH E.\r\n FALLANI aka RUTH E. MOSQUERA,

\r\n

Plaintiff(s),

\r\n

vs.

\r\n

\r\n

BORIS\r\n URENA, ET AL.,

\r\n

\r\n

Defendant(s).

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n

)

\r\n

)

\r\n

)

\r\n

)

\r\n

)

\r\n

)

\r\n

)

\r\n

)

\r\n

)

\r\n

)

\r\n

)

\r\n

)

\r\n

)

\r\n

)

\r\n

)

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n

CASE NO: 21CMCV00041

\r\n

\r\n

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING\r\n PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

\r\n

\r\n

Dept. A

\r\n

\r\n

DATE: 12/2/21

\r\n

TIME: 9:00\r\n A.M.

\r\n

\r\n

COMPLAINT FILED: 3/1/21

\r\n

TRIAL DATE: 5/9/22

\r\n
\r\n\r\n

1. Background

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff alleges that she owns real property located at\r\n7356 Walnut Avenue in Paramount. Defendant, Boris Urena, had been previously\r\nmarried to Plaintiff, but the parties divorced in 2009. Pursuant to a judgment\r\nof dissolution. Defendant signed a Grant Deed on 4/23/09 transferring all\r\ninterest he had in the property to Plaintiff. On 2/17/12, Plaintiff transferred\r\nthe property to the Ruth E. Mosquera Revocable Trust by way of a Grant Deed.

\r\n\r\n

On 9/8/20, Plaintiff alleges that she mistakenly transferred\r\nthe property, granting an interest to her daughter, Vivian Urena, as intended,\r\nbut also to her ex-husband, Defendant Urena. Plaintiff discovered the error\r\nwhen she tried to list the property for sale. Defendant refused to correct the deed\r\nand grant his interest back to Plaintiff and their daughter. Plaintiff alleges\r\nclaims for (1) quiet title, (2) declaratory relief, and (3) for the Clerk of\r\nthe Court to Sign All Necessary Documents to Effectuate Transfer.

\r\n\r\n

After Plaintiff filed this civil action, Defendant filed\r\nan unlawful detainer action on 7/1/21 bearing Case No. 21CMUD00337 against\r\nDefendants, Erika Fuentes, Rigoberto Fuentes and Litzy Bailon, with respect to\r\nresidential real property located at 7356 Walnut Avenue in Paramount, the same\r\nreal property at issue in the quiet title action. In the unlawful detainer\r\nmatter, Urena alleges that Erika Fuentes was his ex-partner. Urena served a\r\n60-day notice to quit against all three Defendants.

\r\n\r\n

In the unlawful detainer action, the court heard Defendants’\r\nMotion for Summary Judgment on 10/15/21 and granted the motion in favor of\r\nDefendants, Erika Fuentes and Litzy Bailon, and against Plaintiff, Boris Urena.\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

2. Plaintiff’s Motion to consolidate the unlawful\r\ndetainer action with this quiet title action filed 9/24/21

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff argues that Urena, claiming ownership to the\r\nreal property at issue, is attempting to evict Erika Fuentes from the property.\r\nPlaintiff does not wish to evict her. Plaintiff contends that her quiet title\r\naction should be heard first to determine ownership before the unlawful\r\ndetainer action can commence, which will avoid a second trial based on the same\r\nfacts.

\r\n\r\n

The court’s file does not reflect that Defendant was\r\nserved with the motion.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

3. Legal Standards

\r\n\r\n

The decision to consolidate is a matter for the court’s\r\ndiscretion. Muller v. Robinson (1959) 174 Cal. App. 2d 511, 515. Cases\r\ncannot be consolidated unless they are pending in the same department and have\r\nbeen related. CA ST CIVIL RULES Rule Rule 3.300.” CA R LOS ANGELES SUPER CT\r\nRule 3.3(g)(1).

\r\n\r\n

A pending civil case is related to another pending civil\r\ncase, or to a civil case that was dismissed with or without prejudice, or to a\r\ncivil case that was disposed of by judgment, if the cases: “(1) Involve the same parties and are based\r\non the same or similar claims; (2) Arise from the same or substantially\r\nidentical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the\r\nsame or substantially identical questions of law or fact; (3) Involve claims\r\nagainst, title to, possession of, or damages to the same property; or (4) Are\r\nlikely for other reasons to require substantial duplication of judicial\r\nresources if heard by different judges.” CA ST CIVIL RULES Rule 3.300.

\r\n\r\n

Consolidation is appropriate if the cases involve common\r\nquestions of law or fact and consolidation will avoid unnecessary costs and\r\ndelay or the necessity of two trials.

\r\n\r\n

Code Civ. Proc., § 1048.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

4. Discussion

\r\n\r\n

The court’s file does not reflect that Plaintiff filed a\r\nNotice of Related Cases in both actions and obtained an order relating the\r\ncases and transferring the unlawful detainer matter to this court. This is a\r\nprerequisite to requesting consolidation. The unlawful detainer case is\r\npresently assigned to Department 7 of the Compton Courthouse.

\r\n\r\n

While both cases involve the same real property, they do\r\nnot involve the determination of the same or substantially identical questions\r\nof law or fact. The quiet title action involves the determination of title as\r\nbetween Plaintiff Fallani and Defendant Urena. The unlawful detainer action\r\ninvolves the determination of Urena’s right to possession of the real property\r\nagainst three tenants or occupants who are not involved in the quiet title\r\naction. Consolidation is inappropriate for the same reason.

\r\n\r\n

5. Conclusion

\r\n\r\n

Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate is\r\ndenied.

\r\n\r\n

Moving party is ordered to\r\ngive notice.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

DATED:\r\nDecember\r\n 2, 2021

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

_______________________________

\r\n\r\n

Hon.\r\nThomas D. Long

\r\n\r\n

Judge\r\nof the Superior Court

\r\n\r\n

'
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer ROSIAK RICHARD