Sample motion for consolidation in unlawful detainer (eviction) in California

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Any Attorney or Party
Any Street
Any Town, CA 99999
555-555-5555
Superior Court of the State of California
For the County of _____________
Any Plaintiff,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Any Defendant,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. UNLAWFUL DETAINER CASE HERE
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR
CONSOLIDATION OF CASES; MEMORANDUM
OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES;
DECLARATION(S) OF _______________,
EXHIBITS
DATE:
TIME:
DEPT:
Any Plaintiff,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Any Defendant,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.
///
///
- 1 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
To subscribe to my FREE Weekly legal newsletter visit
http://www.legaldocspro.net/newsletter.htm and enter your e-mail
address.
To view many more sample legal documents sold by
LegalDocsPro visit http://www.scribd.com/legaldocspro
Be sure to remove all notices before using this document.
1TO ALL INTERESTED PARTIES IN EACH CASE CAPTIONED ABOVE AND THEIR
ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on ___________ at ___M., or as soon thereafter as
the matter can be heard, in Dept. _____ of the above-entitled Court located at ______________,
Defendant _____________________, will and does move the Court for an order pursuant to Code of
Civil Procedure § 1048(a) to consolidate Case No. LIST UNLAWFUL DETAINER CASE
NUMBER HERE captioned NAME OF PLAINTIFF vs. NAME OF FIRST DEFENDANT
(“________Action); Case No. LIST CASE NUMBER OF SECOND CASE HERE captioned
NAME OF PLAINTIFF vs. NAME OF FIRST DEFENDANT, (“________Action) and Case No.
Defendant contends that they will suffer irreparable injury if the Court does not act
immediately in that this action is a summary proceeding and due to the summary procedures involved
they will be forced to litigate the complex issues of title to the subject real property in this unlawful
detainer case without the benefit of discovery procedures normally available to litigants in other civil
actions.
- 2 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
This motion will be based upon this Notice, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities in
support thereof, the files and records of this case, the declaration of __________ and Exhibits
attached thereto, and such other and further oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at
the hearing.
Dated________________ _______________________________________________
ANY ATTORNEY OR PARTY
Be sure to modify these paragraphs to suit your individual
situation. Do NOT just use the wording here unless it definitely applies
to your particular situation. Be sure to add or subtract case captions as
necessary and file the motion in your unlawful detainer case.
Note that this motion should only be used when all cases are
pending in the same Court.
You must serve all parties in every case who have made an appearance
with this entire motion including all supporting documents. In the
other case you only have to file the notice of motion and proof of
service. See California Rule of Court. 3.350 for more details.
Call the clerk of the Court to determine the exact procedures used
for a motion to consolidate such as when and where to file, etc.
- 3 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
You should file this motion within a reasonable period of time
after you discover the need for consolidation of the cases and you must
give at least sixteen (16) Court days notice, plus an additional five (5)
calendar days if the motion is served by mail. Note that Court days
includes Monday through Friday except for Court holidays. If you do
not have time file an ex-parte application for an order shortening time
for hearing.
Check your local Court rules as they may have additional
requirements for filing a motion to consolidate.
- 4 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Any Street
Any Town, CA 99999
555-555-5555
Any Plaintiff,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Any Defendant,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION(S) OF
_______________, EXHIBITS
DATE:
TIME:
DEPT:
Any Plaintiff,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Any Defendant,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.
///
///
///
- 5 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………………………………......__
II. ARGUMENT………………………………………………………………………………..__
A. THIS COURT HAS THE STATUTORY POWER TO GRANT DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR AN ORDER THAT THE LISTED ACTIONS BE CONSOLIDATED
PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE § 1048(a) ON THE GROUNDS
THAT THEY ALL INVOLVE THE SAME COMMON OPERATIVE FACTS AND
CONTAIN COMMON ISSUES AND THIS UNLAWFUL DETAINER
PROCEEDING IS OF A SUMMARY NATURE WHICH PRECLUDES
LITIGATING THE COMPLEX ISSUE OF THE PARTIES RESPECTIVE RIGHTS
TO TITLE TO THE REAL PROPERTY ………………………………………….__
B. A MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE IS APPROPRIATE DUE TO THE FACT THAT
THIS SUMMARY PROCEEDING PRECLUDES DEFENDANT FROM
OBTAINING THE DISCOVERY THAT IS ORDINARLY AVAILABLE TO
LITIGANTS IN CIVIL ACTIONS CONCERNING CLAIMS OF TITLE……….__
C. NUMEROUS DECISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL AND
EVEN THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HAVE STATED THAT THE
SUMMARY UNLAWFUL DETAINER PROCEDURES ARE ONLY
CONSTITUTIONALLY ACCEPTABLE WHEN APPLIED TO
STRAIGHTFORWARD ISSUES OF POSSESSION AND INCIDENTAL
DAMAGES ………………………………………………………………………….__
D. DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT BE FORCED TO LITIGATE THE ISSUE OF TITLE
TO THE REAL PROPERTY IN THIS SUMMARY PROCEEDING AND BECAUSE
OF THE ISSUES INVOLVED BETWEEN THE PARTIES THIS CASE DOES NOT
QUALIFY AS A LIMITED CIVIL CASE UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW ………__
III. CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………………....__
- 6 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
Cases
Asuncion v. Superior Court (1980) 108 Cal.App.3d 141 ……………………………………………__
Childs v. Eltinge (1973) 29 Cal.App.3d 843, 853 ……………………………………………………__
Deal v. Municipal Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 991, 995 ………………………………………….__
Lindsey v. Normet (1972) 405 U.S. 56, 72-73 ………………………………………………………__
Lynch & Freytag v. Cooper (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 603, 608 ………………………………………__
Martin-Bragg v. Moore (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 367, 385 ………………………………………….__
Mehr v. Superior Court (1983) 139 Cal.App.3d 1044, 1049 ………………………………………..__
Workmen's Compensation Appeals Bd. v. Small Claims Court of Alameda County (1973) 35
Cal.App.3d 643, 645 …………………………………………………………………………………__
Statutes
California Rule of Court 3.350 ………………………………………………………………………__
Code of Civil Procedure § 85 ………………………………………………………………………..__
Code of Civil Procedure § 86 ……………………………………………………………………….__
Code of Civil Procedure § 1048(a) …………………………………………………………………__
California Code of Civil Procedure § 1177 …………………………………………………….........__
Code of Civil Procedure § 2024.040(b)(1) …………………………………………………………..__
- 7 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
This unlawful detainer case arises from LIST HERE A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE
CASE SUCH AS UNLAWFUL DETAINER REGARDING REAL PROPERTY LOCATED
AT SUCH AND SUCH AN ADRESS, ETC. THE NAMED PARTIES IN THIS UNLAWFUL
DETAINER CASE ARE LIST THE NAMES OF ALL PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANTS IN
THIS UNLAWFUL DETAINER CASE ARE: LIST NAMES OF ALL PARTIES IN THIS
UNLAWFUL DETAINER CASE.
The _______ Action was filed on _____ by Defendant against ___________ and arises from
LIST HERE A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE CASE SUCH AS CAUSES OF ACTION,
PARTIES, ETC. THE NAMED PARTIES IN THIS CASE ARE LIST THE NAMES OF ALL
PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANTS IN THIS CASE ARE: LIST NAMES OF ALL PARTIES
IN THIS CASE.
______________ (“Moving Party”) requests an order pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §
1048(a) on the grounds that all of the Actions arise out of the same set of operative facts namely
LIST HERE THE SAME SET OF OPERATIVE FACTS and contain common issues in that
LIST HERE THE ISSUES THAT ARE COMMON TO ALL OF THE ACTIONS AND CITE
TO ANY ATTACHED DECLARATIONS AND EXHIBITS. See the declaration(s) of
_________ and Exhibits attached thereto.
Consolidation of all of the Actions will avoid unnecessary duplication of evidence and
procedures in all of the actions; avoid the risk of inconsistent adjudications and avoid many of the
- 8 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
same witnesses testifying on common issues in all actions as well as promote judicial economy and
convenience.
The declaration (s) of ___________ and Exhibits attached thereto clearly show that
consolidation of all of the above listed actions will avoid repetitive trials of the same common issues,
avoid unnecessary costs and delays to the Court and to all of the parties, and eliminate the risk of
inconsistent adjudications.
The moving party has fully complied with California Rule of Court 3.350 in that they have —
list all named parties in each case, the names of those who have appeared, and the names of their
respective attorneys of record, if any, they have listed the captions of all the cases sought to be
consolidated, with the lowest numbered case listed first; and have served an entire copy of this
motion and notice of motion including the memorandum of points and authorities and supporting
declarations and Exhibits on all attorneys of record and all nonrepresented parties in all of the cases
sought to be consolidated, and a proof of service has been filed as part of the motion
to your particular situation.
///
///
///
///
///
///
- 9 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
II.
LEGAL ARGUMENT
A. THIS COURT HAS THE STATUTORY POWER TO GRANT DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR AN ORDER THAT THE LISTED ACTIONS BE CONSOLIDATED
PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE § 1048(a) ON THE GROUNDS THAT
THEY ALL INVOLVE THE SAME COMMON OPERATIVE FACTS AND CONTAIN
COMMON ISSUES AND THIS UNLAWFUL DETAINER PROCEEDING IS OF A
SUMMARY NATURE WHICH PRECLUDES LITIGATING THE COMPLEX ISSUE OF
THE PARTIES RESPECTIVE RIGHTS TO TITLE TO THE REAL PROPERTY
Code of Civil Procedure § 1048(a) states that, “(a) When 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.
A motion for consolidation may be filed in an unlawful detainer action as Code of Civil
Procedure § 1177 states that, “Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter the provisions of Part II
of this Code are applicable to, and constitute the rules of practice in the proceedings mentioned in this
Chapter.”
Moving Party contends that consolidation of all the actions listed herein is proper on the
grounds that all of the Actions arise out of the same set of operative facts namely LIST HERE THE
SAME SET OF OPERATIVE FACTS and contain common issues in that LIST HERE THE
ISSUES THAT ARE COMMON TO ALL OF THE ACTIONS AND CITE TO ANY
ATTACHED DECLARATIONS AND EXHIBITS. See the declaration(s) of _________ and
Exhibits attached thereto.
- 10 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Consolidation of all of the Actions will avoid unnecessary duplication of evidence and
procedures in all of the actions; avoid the risk of inconsistent adjudications and avoid many of the
same witnesses testifying on common issues in all actions as well as promote judicial economy and
convenience.
The only triable issue in an unlawful detainer proceeding is the right to possession of the
premises along with any damages that result from the unlawful detention.
A recent California Court of Appeal case stated that,
“Ordinarily the only triable issue in an unlawful detainer proceeding is the right to possession
of the disputed premises, along with any incidental damages that result from the property’s unlawful
detention. Issues of title to the property ordinarily cannot be adjudicated in an unlawful detainer
action. The denial of certain procedural rights enjoyed by litigants in ordinary actions is deemed
necessary in order to prevent frustration of the summary proceedings by the introduction of delays
and extraneous issues.
However, the trial court has the power to consolidate an unlawful detainer proceeding with a
simultaneously pending action in which title to the property is in issue. That is because a successful
claim of title by the tenant would defeat the landlord’s right to possession. When an unlawful
detainer proceeding and an unlimited action concerning title to the property are simultaneously
pending, the trial court in which the unlimited action is pending may stay the unlawful detainer action
until the issue of title is resolved in the unlimited action, or it may consolidate the actions. If it does
neither, and instead tries the issue of title under the summary procedures that constrain unlawful
detainer proceedings, the parties’ right to a full trial of the issue of title may be unfairly expedited and
limited. If complex issues of title are tried in the unlawful detainer proceeding, the proceeding loses
its summary character; defects in the plaintiff’s title are neither properly raised in this summary
- 11 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
proceeding for possession, nor are they concluded by the judgment.” Martin-Bragg v. Moore (2013)
219 Cal.App.4th 367, 385 (citations and quotations omitted.)
Because the unlimited civil complaint filed in the second case by Defendant alleges LIST
HERE THE CAUSES OF ACTION IN THE SECOND COMPLAINT SUCH AS FRAUD,
WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE, ETC., they clearly affect title to the real property and thus
cannot be fairly adjudicated in a summary proceeding such as this unlawful detainer.
B. A 1 MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE IS APPROPRIATE DUE TO THE FACT
THAT THIS SUMMARY PROCEEDING PRECLUDES DEFENDANT FROM OBTAINING
THE DISCOVERY THAT IS ORDINARLY AVAILABLE TO LITIGANTS IN CIVIL
ACTIONS CONCERNING CLAIMS OF TITLE
Defendant contends that their motion to consolidate is appropriate as this summary
proceeding precludes Defendant from obtaining the discovery that is ordinarily available to litigants
in civil actions concerning claims of title. The trial date of _______ is fast approaching and
Defendant will not have time to conduct any meaningful discovery in this unlawful detainer case as
Code of Civil Procedure § 2024.040, subd. (b)(1) states in pertinent part that discovery in summary
proceedings for possession of property is to be completed on or before the fifth day before the date
set for trial.
- 12 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C. NUMEROUS DECISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL
AND EVEN THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HAVE STATED THAT THE
SUMMARY UNLAWFUL DETAINER PROCEDURES ARE ONLY CONSTITUTIONALLY
ACCEPTABLE WHEN APPLIED TO STRAIGHTFORWARD ISSUES OF POSSESSION
AND INCIDENTAL DAMAGES
Numerous decisions of the California Courts of Appeal and even the United States Supreme
Court have stated that the summary unlawful detainer procedures are only constitutionally acceptable
when applies to straightforward issues of possession and incidental damages.
“[A]n action for unlawful detainer can co-exist with other causes of action in the same
complaint,” it has been held, but only “so long as the entire case is treated as an ordinary civil action,
not as a summary proceeding.” Lynch & Freytag v. Cooper (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 603, 608, see
also Martin-Bragg v. Moore, supra 219 Cal.App.4th
at p. 387.
“The California wrongful detainer statutes were ‘. . . enacted to provide an adequate,
expeditious and summary procedure for regaining possession of real property wrongfully withheld by
a tenant. [Fn. omitted.] The rights and remedies afforded a landlord by the statutory provisions are
given in lieu of his common law rights and remedies which included the right to enter and expel the
tenant by force. [Citations.] The enactment of such statutory procedures is supported by the strong
public policy of preserving the peace [citation] as well as the recognition of the unique factual and
- 13 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
legal characteristics of the landlord-tenant relationship. [Citation.] . . . .’” Deal v. Municipal Court
(1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 991, 995, quoting Childs v. Eltinge (1973) 29 Cal.App.3d 843, 853, see also
Martin-Bragg v. Moore, supra 219 Cal.App.4th
at p. 387.
The United States Supreme Court ruled that the summary procedures of an Oregon forcible
entry and wrongful detainer statute were justified by the nature of the landlord-tenant relationship,
and when applied in that narrow context they afford the tenant due process. "There are unique factual
and legal characteristics of the landlord-tenant relationship that justify special statutory treatment
inapplicable to other litigants.... [U]nless a judicially supervised mechanism is provided for what
would otherwise be swift repossession by the landlord himself, the tenant would be able to deny the
landlord the rights of income incident to ownership by refusing to pay rent and by preventing sale or
rental to someone else.... Speedy adjudication is desirable to prevent subjecting the landlord to
undeserved economic loss and the tenant to unmerited harassment and dispossession when his lease
or rental agreement gives him the right to peaceful and undisturbed possession of the property.
Holding over by the tenant beyond the term of his agreement or holding without payment of rent has
proved a virulent source of friction and dispute," and a state is "well within its constitutional powers
in providing for rapid and peaceful settlement of these disputes." Lindsey v. Normet (1972) 405 U.S.
56, 72-73, see also Martin-Bragg v. Moore, supra 219 Cal.App.4th
at p. 387-388.
However, the Supreme Court did not approve the application of these justifications outside of
the context of routine cases in which the tenant has failed to pay rent or has held over after the
tenancy has expired, "and the issue in the ensuing litigation is simply whether he has paid or held
over ...." (Lindsey v. Normet, supra, 405 U.S. at pp. 64-65.) The constitutionality of these summary
procedures is based on their limitation to the single issue of right to possession and incidental
- 14 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
damages. (Ibid) (emphasis added), see also Martin-Bragg v. Moore (2013, supra, 219 Cal.App.4th
at
p. 387-388.
“It would obviously be unfair to require the defendant-tenant to defend against ordinary civil
actions under the constraints of the summary procedure in unlawful detainer actions” Deal v.
Municipal Court, supra, 157 Cal.App.3d at p. 996, see also see also Martin-Bragg v. Moore (2013)
219 Cal.App.4th
supra, at 389-390.
A California Court of Appeal stated in Asuncion v. Superior Court (1980) 108 Cal.App.3d
141, 144 in pertinent part that “It is generally recognized the summary unlawful detainer action is not
a suitable vehicle to try complicated ownership issues involving assertions of fraud and deceptive
practices such as the Asuncions allege here”, and “As we see it, after the eviction is transferred to the
superior court, a number of procedural devices exist to facilitate accommodating the eviction action
with the fraud action which the Asuncions separately filed. A possibility, which we understand is
frequently utilized in other counties, is for the superior court to stay the eviction proceedings until
trial of the fraud action, based on the authority of Code of Civil Procedure section 526 which permits
a preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo on such grounds as irreparable injury, multiplicity
of legal actions, or unconscionable relative hardship. . . We hold only, the Asuncions are entitled to
defend this eviction action based on the claims of fraud and related causes which they have asserted,
and accordingly the action necessarily exceeds the jurisdiction of the municipal court and cannot be
tried there.” Asuncion v. Superior Court, supra 108 Cal.App.3d at p. 146. See also Mehr v. Superior
Court (1983) 139 Cal.App.3d 1044, 1049 (unlawful detainer actions may be consolidated with other
causes of action if allegations of fraud are so complex that they cannot be properly presented within
the statutory time constraints of an unlawful detainer action.)
- 15 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
D. DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT BE FORCED TO LITIGATE THE ISSUE OF
TITLE TO THE REAL PROPERTY IN THIS SUMMARY PROCEEDING AND BECAUSE
OF THE ISSUES INVOLVED BETWEEN THE PARTIES THIS CASE DOES NOT
QUALIFY AS A LIMITED CIVIL CASE UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW
Defendant contends that based on the points and authorities cited previously they should not
be forced to litigate the issue of title to the real property in this summary proceeding. Defendant also
contends that because of the unique issues involved between the parties this case does not qualify as a
limited civil case under California law.
The amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional limits of the limited civil Court
of $25,000, in that Defendant who is the Plaintiff in the second case Plaintiff is seeking recovery of
damages far exceeding $25,000, and the imposition of punitive damages in a substantially greater
amount.
Code of Civil Procedure § 86 provides in pertinent part as follows:
“(a) The following civil cases and proceedings are limited civil cases:
(1) Cases at law in which the demand, exclusive of interest, or the value of the property in
controversy amounts to twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) or less.
(4) Proceedings in forcible entry or forcible or unlawful detainer where the whole amount of
damages claimed is twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) or less.
- 16 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(5) Actions to enforce and foreclose liens on personal property where the amount of the liens
is twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) or less.”
Thus, the Limited Civil Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, where as here, the
amount is controversy exceeds $25,000, to wit, $500,000 in quantifiable compensatory damages.
Code of Civil Procedure § 85 provides: “An action or special proceeding shall be treated as a
limited civil case if all of the following conditions are satisfied, and, notwithstanding any statute that
classifies an action or special proceeding as a limited civil case, an action or special proceeding shall
not be treated as a limited civil case unless all of the following conditions are satisfied: (a) The
amount in controversy does not exceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000). As used in this
section, "amount in controversy" means the amount of the demand, or the recovery sought, or the
value of the property, or the amount of the lien, that is in controversy in the action, exclusive of
attorneys' fees, interest, and costs. (b) The relief sought is a type that may be granted in a limited
civil case. (c) The relief sought, whether in the complaint, a cross-complaint, or otherwise, is
exclusively of a type described in one or more statutes that classify an action or special proceeding as
a limited civil case or that provide that an action or special proceeding is within the original
jurisdiction of the municipal court.”
Therefore any action which is based on the same facts and issues whether as a claim or
counterclaim would require the Limited Civil Court to transfer Jurisdiction and for the Unlimited
Civil Court to assume Jurisdiction.
“A court has no jurisdiction to hear or determine a case where the type of proceeding or the
amount in controversy is beyond the jurisdiction defined for that particular court by statute or
constitutional provision.” Workmen's Compensation Appeals Bd. v. Small Claims Court of Alameda
County (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 643, 645. (citing text).
- 17 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendant contends that the Court should grant their motion to consolidate both cases but in
the event that the Court is inclined to deny the motion to consolidate Defendant requests that the
Court explore other options including the option to sever and separately try the issue of title to the
real property in this action.
“With or without consolidation of the cases, trial courts have available options to address
plaintiffs' legitimate rights and need for protection from unjustified delay of the unlawful detainer
proceeding, while still affording reasonable opportunities for discovery and to prepare for trial of
complex issues relating to the property's title. The trial court has discretion, for example, to sever and
separately try the issue of title to the property, while assuring the availability of fair compensation to
the plaintiff for any delay in acquiring possession. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1170.5, subd. (c) [court may
order defendant to pay contract rent into court during delay of trial for defendant's benefit.]” Martin-
Bragg v. Moore supra, 219 Cal.App.4th
at p. 393.
III.
CONCLUSION
Based on the above, it is respectfully requested that the Court grant this ex-parte application
to shorten time for hearing on the motion to consolidate this case with the Unlimited Civil Case filed
by Defendant.
Dated:
ANY ATTORNEY OR PARTY
- 18 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Any Street
Any Town, CA 99999
555-555-5555
Any Plaintiff,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Any Defendant,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DECLARATION OF _______________ IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE;
EXHIBITS
DATE:
TIME:
DEPT:
Any Plaintiff,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Any Defendant,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.
///
///
///
- 19 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF __________ IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
I, _______________________, declare as follows.
USE THIS WORDING IF AN ATTORNEY SIGNS THE DECLARATION:
1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before all courts in the State of
California. I am the attorney of record for __________, in the above-entitled proceedings and, as
such, I have knowledge of the matters contained herein and they are true and correct of my own
personal knowledge, except for those matters stated upon information and belief as to those matters, I
believe them to be true and correct. If called and sworn as a witness, I could and would testify
competently thereto.
USE THIS WORDING IF THE MOVING PARTY SIGNS THIS DECLARATION
1. I am a ___________ in above-entitled proceedings. I am over the age of 18 years and
have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this declaration, and if called as a witness, could and
would testify competently to the truth of the facts as stated herein.
2. I make this declaration in support of the foregoing motion for consolidation of all of
the listed actions on the grounds that if the Court does not grant my motion I will suffer great and
irreparable injury in that I will be forced to litigate the complex issues of title to the subject real
property in this unlawful detainer case which is a summary proceeding.
4. On ______ I filed an unlimited civil action against Plaintiffs alleging causes of action
for LIST ALL CAUSES OF ACTION IN COMPLAINT SUCH AS FRAUD, WRONGFUL
FORECLOSURE, QUIET TITLE, ETC. A true and correct conformed copy of the summons and
complaint in said civil action is attached hereto as Exhibit “1” and incorporated herein by reference.
5. LIST HERE ANY ADDITIONAL FACTS THAT SUPPORT YOUR MOTION
FOR CONSOLIDATION. BE SURE TO PROVIDE AS MUCH DETAIL AS YOU CAN TO
- 20 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM THAT TITLE TO THE REAL PROPERTY IS DISPUTED AND
THAT COMPLEX ISSUES OF TITLE MUST BE LITIGATED. LIST ALL OTHER
SUPPORTING FACTS OR EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORT THE MOTION AND ATTACH
ANY RELEVANT SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS AS EXHIBITS “2”, ETC.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
is true and correct and that this Declaration is executed on ______________________ at
_____________________________,California.
_____________________________________________
NAME OF PERSON SIGNING DECLARATION
- 21 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this action.
I am a resident of or employed in the county where the mailing occurred; my
business/residence address is: ADDRESS OF PERSON SERVING PAPERS.
On ___________________________ I served the foregoing document(s) described as:
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION OF CASES;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATIONS OF
____________________; EXHIBITS to the following parties:
NAME AND ADDRESS OF ATTORNEY FOR ALL OTHER PARTIES WHO HAVE
APPEARED OR ALL OTHER PARTIES IF THEY HAVE NO ATTORNEY FOR EVERY
CASE THAT YOU WANT CONSOLIDATED.
[X] (By U.S. Mail) I deposited such envelope in the mail at ___________ postage
thereon fully prepaid. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is
presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one
day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
DATED: ________________ _______________________________________
NAME OF PERSON SERVING PAPERS
- 22 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Any Street
Any Town, CA 99999
555-555-5555
Any Plaintiff,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Any Defendant,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR
CONSOLIDATION OF CASES
Any Plaintiff,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Any Defendant,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.
///
///
- 23 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FILE THIS MOTION WITH THE PROOF OF SERVICE USED
ABOVE IN ALL CASES EXCEPT IN THE UNLAWFUL DETAINER
CASE. IN THE UNLAWFUL DETAINER CASE YOU MUST FILE
AND SERVE THE ENTIRE MOTION INCLUDING POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES, SUPPORTING DECLARATIONS, ETC., ON ALL
PARTIES WHO HAVE APPEARED IN ANY OF THE ACTIONS.
- 24 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Any Street
Any Town, CA 99999
555-555-5555
Any Plaintiff,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Any Defendant,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
CONSOLIDATION OF CASES
Any Plaintiff,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Any Defendant,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.
///
///
- 25 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The motion of LIST NAME AND CAPACITY OF MOVING PARTY for an Order to
consolidate Case No. LIST CASE NUMBER OF UNLAWFUL DETAINER CASE HERE
captioned NAME OF PLAINTIFF vs. NAME OF FIRST DEFENDANT (“________Action);
Case No. LIST CASE NUMBER OF SECOND CASE HERE captioned NAME OF
PLAINTIFF vs. NAME OF FIRST DEFENDANT, (“________Action) for
USE EITHER OF THE FOLLOWING EXAMPLES: complete consolidation for all purposes, or
consolidation for purposes of trial only came on for duly noticed hearing on _________________
___________________ in Dept. ____of the above-entitled Court located at ____________________
the Honorable _______________________________________, Presiding.
After reviewing the moving papers and opposing papers, and hearing the arguments of
counsel, the Court now rules as follows,
GOOD CAUSE APPEARING,
IT IS ORDERED THAT the motion of LIST NAME AND CAPACITY OF MOVING
PARTY shall be and is hereby GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERD THAT Case No. LIST CASE NUMBER OF UNLAWFUL
DETAINER CASE captioned NAME OF PLAINTIFF vs. NAME OF FIRST DEFENDANT
(“________Action); Case No. LIST CASE NUMBER OF SECOND CASE HERE captioned
NAME OF PLAINTIFF vs. NAME OF FIRST DEFENDANT, (“________Action) and Case No.
LIST CASE NUMBER OF SECOND CASE HERE captioned NAME OF PLAINTIFF vs.
NAME OF FIRST DEFENDANT, and consolidation is ordered for all purposes, or consolidation
for purposes of trial only.
Dated:___________________ ________________________________________________
JUDGE/COMMISSIONER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
- 26 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOTE THAT YOU MUST FILE A SIGNED COPY OF THIS
ORDER IN ALL OF THE CASES THAT ARE CONSOLIDATED.
BE SURE TO MODIFY THIS ORDER TO SUIT YOUR
PARTICULAR SITUATION.
- 27 -

Sample motion for consolidation in unlawful detainer (eviction) in California

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (7)

Similar to Sample motion for consolidation in unlawful detainer (eviction) in California

Similar to Sample motion for consolidation in unlawful detainer (eviction) in California (20)

More from LegalDocsPro

More from LegalDocsPro (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (11)

Sample motion for consolidation in unlawful detainer (eviction) in California