MCELHANEY vs U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

23CV009343: MCELHANEY vs U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION 12/19/2025 Hearing on Motion to Consolidate in Department 47

Tentative Ruling

rNOTICE: If oral arguments are requested or appearances are required, the hearing may be conducted in person or remotely via ZoomGov [which includes telephonic and teleconferencing options]. No Court Call appearances will be permitted. If you choose to use Zoom you must use your first and last name on your ZoomGov account so the court can positively identify you. The Department 47 ZoomLink is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept47 and the ZoomGov ID is: 16173813009. Appearances via videoconference using the above link are preferred. To appear on ZoomGov by phone, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the ZoomGov ID referenced above, available phone commands include *6 to mute/unmute or *9 to raise your hand. If you experience issues joining your hearing, please contact the clerk in Department 47 at (916) 874-5487 for assistance.

The notice of motion provides inaccurate information regarding the Court’s tentative ruling system. The Court’s tentative ruling system for the Law and Motion calendar in the Presiding Judge’s department is governed by Local Rule 1.05(C)-(D), which has different requirements for requesting oral argument. Moving counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel and/or selfrepresented litigants and advise them of the correct local rule, the Court’s tentative ruling procedure, and the manner to request a hearing for motions pending in this Department.

The motion of Rodney McElhaney (“Moving Party”) to consolidate Roddie McElhaney v. U.S. Bank Trust National Association, et al., Case No. 23CV009343 (the “Unlimited Action”) and U.S. Bank Trust National Association, et al. v. Roddie McElhaney, Case No. 25UD004489 (the “UD Action”) is ruled on as follows. “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.” (Code Civ.

Proc. § 1048(a).) Generally, unlawful detainer actions should not be consolidated with other cases as it would frustrate the purpose of the unlawful detainer statutes in providing an expeditious and adequate remedy for obtaining possession of wrongfully withheld property. (Childs v. Eltinge (1973) 29 Cal.App.3d 843, 852.) However, consolidation of a civil action and unlawful detainer action is appropriate when the civil action involves complex issues of title that cannot be determined in summary proceedings and would defeat the right of possession. (Martin-Bragg v.

Moore (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 367.)

The instant dispute involves an unlawful detainer action following a nonjudicial foreclosure and

23CV009343: MCELHANEY vs U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION 12/19/2025 Hearing on Motion to Consolidate in Department 47

a wrongful foreclosure civil action. Generally, [m]atters affecting the validity of the trust deed or primary obligation itself, or other basic defects in the plaintiff's title, are neither properly raised in this summary proceeding for possession, nor are they concluded by the judgment.” (Cheney v. Trauzettel (1937) 9 Cal.2d 158, 160.) However, due process may require that a unlawful detainer defendant be permitted to raise affirmative defenses as to title that would defeat the right of possession. (Asuncion v.

Superior Court (1980) 108 Cal.App.3d 141, 147.) To support consolidation of a wrongful foreclosure action and unlawful detainer, the claims of wrongful foreclosure must address compliance with the statutory requirements of Code of Civil Procedure § 1161a and Civil Code § 2924, et seq. or must constitute a direct challenge to the manner in which the unlawful detainer plaintiff obtained title. (Old Nat’l Fin. Servs. v. Seibert (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 460, 466.) Consolidation is not appropriate where the affirmative defenses sought to be raised in the unlawful detainer would not, if provided, maintain possession and ownership. (Id., p. 467.)

The moving memorandum conclusive asserts consolidation is appropriate because the multiple causes of action asserted in the wrongful foreclosure action are not likely to be allowed to be litigated in the unlawful detainer action. However, as noted above, it is generally true that causes of action in a wrongful foreclosure action may not be asserted as affirmative defenses in a wrongful foreclosure action. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s contention is not sufficient to support consolidation. As the moving party, Plaintiff has the burden to demonstrate there are issues asserted in the wrongful foreclosure action that constitute direct challenges to the issue of title or that would directly bear on the question of compliance with the applicable statutes.

Although Plaintiff has attached a copy of the answer in the UD action, Plaintiff has failed to provide any explanation or analysis as to which affirmative defenses in the UD action support consolidation with the wrongful foreclosure action.

The motion to consolidate is denied. The motion to stay the unlawful detainer action is denied without prejudice to reassertion before the judge assigned to the UD Action. Motions to stay are not among the enumerated motions heard by the Presiding Judge. (Local Rule 1.05.) Thus, the request to stay the UD action is not properly pending before the Court in this department.

This case has been assigned to Department 47 for hearing. In the event that either party requests a hearing the matter will be heard at 9:30 a.m. in Department 47. Any party requesting an oral argument must contact the clerk at (916) 874-5487 and opposing counsel or parties in pro per by 12:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing. If a proper request for hearing is not made, this

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV009343: MCELHANEY vs U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION 12/19/2025 Hearing on Motion to Consolidate in Department 47

shall become the order of the Court.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government Code section 68086 and California Rules of Court, rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list, Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk.

If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.