SANDEEP KHANNA, ET AL. VS. DAVID BERNARD PARVIN, ET AL.

May 19, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 23 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________

2:00 PM LINE 12 25-UDL-01436 SANDEEP KHANNA, ET AL. VS. DAVID BERNARD PARVIN, ET AL.

SANDEEP KHANNA PRO SE DAVID BERNARD PARVIN NELSON W GOODELL

DEFENDANT DAVID BERNARD PARVIN’S MOTION TO STAY UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant David Bernard Parvin’s motion to stay unlawful detainer action is GRANTED except that Parvin shall answer the unlawful detainer action.

The Court notes that it has the proposed order on the demurrer in its queue but their was no approval as to form on the proposed order or any showing of compliance by Plaintiffs with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1313. Thus, the court is waiting not only the statutory five days, but additional days due to the clerk’s potential backlog in filing documents before signing the order.

Parvin moves to stay this unlawful detainer proceeding pending the resolution of his separate lawsuit, David Bernard Parvin v. Pointe Pacific et al., case no. 25CIV00194 (the “Parvin Action”). In both cases, Parvin challenges Plaintiffs Sandeep Khanna’s and Muna Khanna’s title to the real property in dispute, claiming that he himself holds legal title due to irregularities in the foreclosure sale by which the Khannas purportedly acquired theirs.

“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.” (Martin-Bragg v. Moore (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 367, 385.) It cannot “do[] neither and instead tr[y] the issue of title under the summary procedures that constrain unlawful detainer proceedings ... .” (Ibid.)

Thus, the same issue of title—one that is legally novel if not factually complex—is at the core of the dispute between the parties in each case. The motion is unopposed, and thus it appears no prejudice would result from the stay of this proceeding. Accordingly, the motion is granted.