PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728RUTH C. ROSE, Esq. SBN 145887433 North Camden Drive, Suite 600Beverly Hills, California, 90210Phone #:(323) 458-3107Fax#:(888) 649-1720

Attorney for DefendantSUE COLE

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIAFOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DENISE A. BAKER

Plaintiffs,v.

SUE COLE,

Defendants.Case No.: 14F01173NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE; with Memorandum of Points and Authority in Support THEREOF:

DATE: March 21, 2014TIME: 8:30AMDept: 57

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE/COMMISSIONER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT AND ALL PARTIES IN INTEREST:PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on the aforesaid date and time in the assigned department of the above-entitled Court, Sue Cole, ("Defendant), will appear pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1048(a) to move the court for an order consolidating the case before the Limited court with this case. This motion will be made on the grounds that the Complaint filed in case no. TC027800 by Defendant herein, and the allegation of Plaintiff in the instant Unlawful Detainer action, require that both cases be consolidated for trial. This Motion is further made and based on the ground that the facts of the one case and the defenses of the other are similar and dependant on each other including (1) the identity of the issues, procedures and parties before the Court; (2) the convenience of the Court and the parties; (3) judicial economy, and (4) the avoidance of duplicative and possibly inconsistent adjudications. (5) The lack of this courts Jurisdiction to hear and consider Defendants Claim of Fraud in assignment on title and in itself, and as a defense to this Unlawful Detainer, and the damages that Defendant is seeking in the Unlimited Superior Court Case, which exceeds the Jurisdictional limit of the Limited Court. (6) Plaintiffs will be denied the Constitutional Right to defenses available in the unlimited jurisdiction of this court in the action in the limited jurisdiction court. This motion will be based on this Notice of Motion and Motion for Consolidation, the supporting Statement of Facts, and Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the court records in this case, and such other and further evidence that shall be presented at the time of the hearing.

Dated March 21, 2014 Respectfully submitted,

_________________________________ RUHT C. ROSE, ESQ.

STATEMENT OF FACTSDefendant Sue Cole and the Plaintiff mother, Teretha Williams passed away on October 23, 2012, with Lung Cancer and Metastasis to the brain. Teretha Williams has real property located at 11661-11663 Huge Ave., a Duplex located in the city of Los Angeles. There wasnt any will left, before Defendant Sue Cole and the Plaintiff mother passed away. It is Defendants contention that the grant deed presented by Plaintiff is in violation of the law of the state of California, in that at the time of the singing of the grant deed Defendants mother was medically unable to execute the grant deed, making it void of any legal weight.MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIESBy this motion, Defendant seek this court's order deeming the within matter related to Los Angeles Superior Court Case Number TC027800 entitled LARRY WILLIAMS, SUE COLE AND BARBARA GILBERT v. DENISE A. BAKER, (hereinafter the Complaint), and consolidating said actions for all purposes. It is Defendants' contention that they have due process right to adequate time to prepare their defense herein and that that right is infringed by the present trial date.1.IT IS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO REFUSE TO CONSOLIDATE AN UNLAWFUL DETAINER WITH A CIVIL ACTION INVOLVING COMPLEX ISSUES OF TITLEIn Martin-Bragg v. Moore 219 Cal.App.4th 367 (2013), the trial court denied a tenants motion to consolidate an unlawful detainer action with a lawsuit the tenant had brought to quit title to the same property. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the trial court had abused its discretion,' because the summary nature of unlawful detainer might deprive the tenant of his due process rights to discovery and trial preparation of the complex issues raised by the quiet title action. The court stated:"Here, the trial court erred. The law affords substantial procedural rights to litigants in cases involving adjudication of complex issues of legal and beneficial title to property. Moore's enjoyment of those rights was compromised by the trial court 's insistence on trying those complex issues using the summary procedures that are approved only for the determination of a landlord 's right to possession in straight- forward unlawful detainer proceedings. [Emphasis supplied.] The court further held that a motion for consolidation in such cases implicates due process rights under the United States and California constitutions:"...[W]hen complex issues of title are involved, the parties' constitutional rights to due process in the litigation of those issues cannot be subordinated to the summary procedures of unlawful detainer."Similarly, see Gonzales v. Gem Properties, Inc. 37 Cal.App.3d 1029, 1036 (1974), where the court pointed out:"The summary nature of unlawful detainer proceedings suggests that, as a practical matter, the likelihood of the defendant's being prepared to litigate the factual issues involved in a fraudulent scheme to deprive him of his property, no matter how diligent defendant is, is not great."In Asuncion v. Superior Court, 108 Cal.App.3d 141, 144 (1980), the courtheld:"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. In holding an unlawful detainer action is not res judicata on the question of fraud in the acquisition of title." [Emphasis supplied.]This is not a garden-variety Unlawful Detainer seeking eviction for non payment of rent. Rather, plaintiffs have put in issue significant and substantial questions of real property law, the resolution of which requires more than the summary proceedings available in Unlawful Detainers.2.DEFENDANT HAVE SHOWN GOOD CAUSE FOR CONTINUANCE OF THE TRIAL DATEAs an alternative to the motion for reconsideration, plaintiffs are entitled to a continuance of the trial date to enable them to conduct discovery and obtain relevant documents. See, CRC 3.1332 (c) (6), as follows:

"Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a con tinuance must be considered on its own merits. The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. Circumstances that may indicate good cause include:(6) A party's excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material .evidence despite diligent efforts..."The trial court. must balance the policy of ''[d]elay reduction and calendar management" with the "strong public policy favoring disposition on the merits." (Hernandez v. Superior Court (2004) 1 15Cal.App.4th 1242, 1246.) Thus, "[w]hile it is true that a trial judge must have control of the courtroom and its calendar and must have discretion to deny a request for a .continuance when there is no good cause for granting one, it is equally true that absent [a lack of diligence or other abusive] circumstances . .. a request for a continuance supported by a showing of good cause usually ought to be granted." (Id. at pp.1246-1247.)CONCLUSIONFor the foregoing reason this court should grant the consolidating of the unlawful detainer action with the civil action in the Los Angeles Superior Court Case Number TC027800 entitled LARRY WILLIAMS, SUE COLE AND BARBARA GILBERT v. DENISE A. BAKER,Dated: January 9, 2014 ______________________________ RUTH C. ROSE, ESQ._________

6

NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE