Motion to stay; Motion for Preliminary Injunction; Motion for Leave to Amend; Motion for Lis Pendens; Motion to Consolidate
This action appears to assert claims which Plaintiff needed to assert in a compulsory cross-complaint, under Code of Civil Procedure section 426.30. The Complaint asserts that Defendant was abusive to Plaintiff “throughout the marriage,” but as the Complaint asserts at ¶ 5 that they separated on 7/5/23, it appears that those claims could have been timely asserted in a cross-complaint. The Complaint also includes a slander claim which appears to be based primarily on allegations made by Defendant in her underlying suit - but the Complaint also asserts at ¶ 12 that Defendant “has told multiple individuals that JOHN gave her a sexually transmitted disease.” As the Opposition asserts that the latter is intended to refer to statements made after a cross-complaint could have been timely filed, the Demurrer on this basis is SUSTAINED with 15 days leave to amend.
Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED under Ev. Code §452(d) as to the existence of and legal effects of the records, but not as to the truth of any disputed facts asserted therein. (Fontenot v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 256, 264.)
The 7/6/26 CMC is continued to 9/8/26 at 8:45am in Dept. C24.
Defendant shall give notice.
207 Riemann vs. SH The court first notes that while this action was West Coast, LLC originally filed by plaintiffs Dave Riemann (Plaintiff) and Lisa Riemann (Lisa), the First Amended Complaint (FAC) does not refer to Lisa anywhere within, nor is it signed by Lisa. As such, it appears Lisa has abandoned her claims in this action.
The FAC, which is the operative complaint, has a sole cause of action for quiet title. Despite Plaintiff
identifying by Chase Bank and PNC Bank as having interest in the subject property by way of senior deeds against the subject property, Plaintiff has not named either entity as a defendant. (FAC ¶¶ 4, 18.) All parties with an interest in property subject to a quiet title action must be named as defendants. (Code of Civil Procedure § 762.010; Taliaferro v. Riddle (1958) 166 Cal. App. 2d 124, 128.)
Plaintiff is to appear at the hearing to discuss the above issues.
Motion to Stay
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Plaintiff requests the court stay an unlawful detainer (U/D) action in Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2026-01545969-CL-UD-CJC, which is in a different courtroom. The court first notes Plaintiff did not provide any identifying information regarding the U/D case. However, even if the case had been properly identified, that matter is not before this court and Plaintiff cited to no statute or case which permits this court to unilaterally stay an action in a different court. It also appears that judgment has been entered in the U/D case, which would in essence moot the motion and take jurisdiction away from this court even if it were in theory able to stay an action in a different court.
The motion to stay is denied.
Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Plaintiff filed motion for preliminary injunction, requesting the court enjoin Defendant from
pursuing any eviction, possession enforcement, or interference with the subject property. The motion is DENIED.
Defendant has already filed the U/D case against Plaintiff in the separate court. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 526, subdivision (b), the court cannot grant in injunction to stay another court. Also, on April 10, 2026, judgment in the U/D case was entered which adjudicated that Defendant had possession of the Property. “Whether an injunction restraining the sale of real property should be granted becomes a moot question on appeal where in the meantime the property has been sold.” (Los Angeles Cnty. v. Butcher (1957) 155 Cal. App. 2d 744, 746.) The court cannot retroactively enjoin Defendant from an action already taken.
Finally, to the extent Plaintiff request the court prohibit Defendant from “interfer[ing] with the senior lender’s reinstatement process,” there are no arguments or facts Defendant is interfering with anything Chase and/or PNC are doing, that Plaintiff can represent the interests of non-party lienholders, that Plaintiff will prevail on the sole cause of action, or that Defendant does not have legal interest or ownership over the Property.
As Plaintiff has not shown the requested relief is something this court can issue or that Plaintiff is likely to prevail on the sole cause of action, the motion is denied.
Motion for Leave to Amend
Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (SAC) is GRANTED.
The motion is granted pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1).
“Generally, leave to amend must be liberally granted [Citation], provided there is no statute of limitations concern, nor any prejudice to the opposing party, such as delay in trial, loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation.” (Solit v. Tokai Bank, Ltd. New York Branch (1999) 68 Cal. App. 4th 1435, 1448.) The court finds no prejudice to Defendant regarding the filing of the SAC.
Plaintiff is ordered to file and serve the SAC attached to the motion within five days of the hearing. Defendant is ordered to file a responsive pleading pursuant to code.
Motion for Lis Pendens
Plaintiff’s motion for lis pendens is DENIED.
The requirements for requesting a list pendens are only that a real property claim is alleged, which would, if meritorious, affect title to, or the right to possession of, specific real property. (Code of Civil Procedure sections 405.4, 405.20, 405.21.) The moving party is also required to identify and notice all parties with an interest in the subject property. (Schneider v. Bank of Am. N.A., No. 2:11-CV-2953 LKK DAD, 2012 WL 761975, at *11 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2012).) The requirements identified by Defendant under Code of Civil Procedure sections 405.3 and 405.32 are only when a motion to expunge has been filed, not for the initial request.
Although an action for quiet title does permit a list pendens (Code of Civil Procedure section 761.01), Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action for quiet title as Plaintiff has not tendered the debt that existed on the property at the time of the foreclosure sale, nor has Plaintiff offered to pay the debt. (Miller and Starr § 13:256. Requirement of tender, 5 Cal. Real Est. § 13:256 (4th ed.); Lona v. Citibank, N.A. (2011) 202 Cal. App. 4th 89, 104.)
As Plaintiff has not stated a cause of action and has not identified or notified all entities with an interest in the property regarding the motion, the motion is denied.
Motion to Consolidate
Plaintiff’s motion to consolidate the present action with the U/D case is DENIED.
The court can only consolidate actions in limited circumstances. (California Rules of Court, Rule 3.300.) Notably, consolidation can only occur in matters that are pending. Judgment in the U/D case was entered on April 10, 2026, which results in a final determination of the merits. As judgment has been entered, the court would exceed its jurisdiction if it granted the motion as there are no questions of law or fact pending before the court in the U/D case. (Sosnick v. Sosnick (1999) 71 Cal. App. 4th 1335, 1339–40.)
The motion is denied.
Requests to Take Judicial Notice (RTJN) and Objections:
Plaintiff’s RTJN:
Granted as to Exs. 1 and 3 (Evid. Code § 452(c)), and Ex. 5 (Evid. Code § 452(d)). Denied as to Exs. 2 as there is no basis for taking judicial notice of a mortgage statement, and Ex. 4 as the document does not appear to have any court filing stamp.
Defendant’s RTJN:
Granted as to Exs. B – G (Evid. Code § 452(d)). Denied as to Ex. A as judicial notice of a filed declaration is unnecessary.
Plaintiff’s Objections on Leave to Amend:
Overruled as to Nos. 1 – 8 as Plaintiff did not make proper objections. (See Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2026) ¶¶ 9:105.5.)
The court continues the 7/6/26 CMC to 9/8/26 at 8:45am in Dept. C24.
Defendant shall give notice.
208 Assadkhan vs. The Motion to Compel Arbitration, filed on 3/9/26 Newport Bluffs by Defendants Newport Bluffs LLC, The Irvine LLC Company LLC, and Irvine Management Company (Defendants), is GRANTED.
As a preliminary matter, the Opposition presented by Plaintiffs Kimya Assadkhan and Tahmineh Sharifnia (Plaintiffs) was extremely tardy. Plaintiffs have not shown circumstances justifying that delay. However, as Defendants were nonetheless able to present a substantive reply, the court will exercise its discretion and consider the Opposition.
Defendants have shown that Plaintiffs entered into a lease with an “Addendum for Arbitration of Disputes and Class Action Waiver” (Addendum) which would encompass the claims presented here, and have provided a complete copy. (Kerzie Decl., Ex. 1.) The procedural requirements for the Motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2 and Rule 3.1330 of the California Rules of Court are thus adequately met. The Opposition does not dispute that this is so.
Plaintiff instead argues that the Addendum is unconscionable. A delegation clause does not deprive the court of jurisdiction to address