Case Number: 19PDUD01269
Hearing Date: December 11, 2020
County: Los Angeles County
Judicial Officer: Kralik
Word Count: 729

 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION PURSUANT TO CCP 1008(B)

BACKGROUND

A. Allegations

The residential property at issue in this action is located at 8801 Riderwood Drive, Sunland, CA 91040.

Plaintiff Danniel Madrid (“Plaintiff”) alleges that he is the successor-in-interest of Judgment Creditor Scott Eric Rosenstiel, while Defendant Candace Howell is the successor-in-interest to Gunter and Prapapun Zielke of Alpha Beta Gamma Trust (“ABG”). Rosenstiel and the ABG had participated in a quiet title action (Case No. BC615215) where judgment was rendered in Rosenstiel’s favor. Rosenstiel filed an eviction action against the Zielkes and ABG (Case No. 16U08017). Rosenstiel thereafter granted possessory interest in the property to Plaintiff on April 1, 2017, but on November 17, 2018, the Zielkes entered into a written lease with Defendant Candace Howell (“Defendant”). Plaintiff alleges that the prior judgment against the Zielkes is binding against Defendant here.

Plaintiff alleges that Rosenstiel licensed the property to Plaintiff by appointing him property manager on April 1, 2017, and that Plaintiff immediately took possession of the premises. Plaintiff alleges he maintained the quiet and peaceable possession of the premises from April 1, 2017 to November 19, 2018, when Defendant began her campaign of forcible entry and detainer.

The Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”), filed February 18, 2020, alleges causes of action for: (1) forcible entry per CCP § 1159 and (2) forcible detainer per CCP § 1160.

B. Relevant Background

On July 10, 2020, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendant’s demurrer to the TAC. The Court also issued an order staying the remainder of the action, including the ruling on Defendant’s demurrer, pending the resolution of the LASC Case No. BC628570 and any related case now before Judge Alarcon.

On October 2, 2020, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Stay Pursuant to CCP §§ 473(d) and 1008 (filed July 20, 2020).

C. Motion on Calendar

On November 18, 2020, Plaintiff Madrid filed a motion for reconsideration pursuant to CCP § 1008(b).

The Court is not in receipt of an opposition brief.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Plaintiff requests judicial notice of 17 documents, which include court records. The request is granted. (Evid. Code, § 452(d).)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the Court’s order for relief from stay imposed on July 10, 2020, pursuant to CCP § 1008(b) on the grounds that there are new circumstances. Plaintiff argues that Judge Alarcon imposed a stay in Case No. BC628570 on October 28, 2020, which was not in place at the time of this Court’s October 2, 2020 order. Plaintiff also argues that Judge Alarcon’s injunction order did not enjoin Rosenstiel or his grandmother from filing a new litigation, the injunction order was never served, and that eviction and quiet title actions can be simultaneously litigated.

On October 28, 2020, Judge Alarcon stayed the resolution of Case No. BC628570 (Zielke et al. v. Rosenstiel et al.), pending the resolution of defendant Rosenstiel’s Appeal No. B298642 of that department’s May 14, 2019 ruling of an anti-SLAPP motion. This Court notes that the jury trial in the Zielke case is set for April 14, 2021.

Although Judge Alarcon’s stay order in the Zielke case was not in place at the time of the Court’s October 2, 2020 order in this case, this is not a basis upon which the Court will grant the motion. Further, Plaintiff’s argument regarding the anti-SLAPP appeal is not novel. Plaintiff previously argued in his prior motion for relief from stay that this Court should ignore the BC628570 action and any ruling therein because the appeal would stay all court proceedings and delay the litigation. The Court previously declined to grant relief from the stay order based on this argument and will remain consistent now in this motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff’s arguments in this motion do not persuade the Court to deviate from its imposition of the stay in this case pending the resolution of the cases before Judge Alarcon.

With regard to Plaintiff’s arguments regarding the injunction order and the simultaneous litigation of eviction and quiet title actions, Plaintiff raised the same arguments in his motion for relief from the stay and this Court already discussed Plaintiff’s arguments in its prior order (denied on October 2, 2020). Thus, the arguments will not be rehashed here. Moreover, Plaintiff has not provided new or different facts, evidence, or law regarding these issues such that the Court declines to reconsider these arguments again.

Thus, the motion for reconsideration of the stay imposed on July 10, 2020 is denied.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is denied.

Plaintiff shall provide notice of this order.

DANNIEL MADRID v. CANDACE HOWELL