You are on page 1of 10

Superior Court of California In and For the County of El Dorado Small Claims FEDERAL HOMELOANMORTGAGE Plaintiff, Vs.

LAURIE FLOOD Defendant.

rs,ED
ts\¡ 2e ?$1$ 4

#

UNLAWFUL DETAINERRULING PCU20100359

JUDGMENT FINDINGS OF FACT This matter came on for an unlawful detainertrial before Andrew D. Woll, Judge Pro-Tem,after having been duly appointedto serveas such by the Superior Court of El Dorado County. Trial was completedand the casewas argued I I -16-2A10. The Court, after consideringonly admissibleevidence,makesthe following factual findings: The caseis one where the FederalHome Loan Mortgage Corporation(hereafter referredto as FHLMC), is suing Laurie Ann Flood, for a writ of possession an in unlawful detainerproceeding. Such proceedings expeditedproceedingswhich are significantly cut down time for discovery and pleading,as well as limit defenses available to the defendant: During trial plaintiff FHLMC, throughcounsel,submittedinto evidenceas Exhibit l, a TRUSTEE'S DEED UPON SALE. Plaintiffalso requested courr take the judicial notice of the complaint and defendants answerthereto. The Court admitted Exhibit I and ruled it would takejudicial notice as requested. Defendantrepresented herselfin pro-per and submittedvarious exhibits which will be referredto in the discussionherein. From the various exhibits we learn: The propefiy at issueis commonly referredto as 4957 Fin Court, Pollock Pines, CA95726. It is residentialpropertyat which defendant residesand which is or was, owned by the defendant. Presumably,the property was purchased the use of cashand by a promissorynote securedby a trust deedthat containeda non judicial sale provision. The note was in favor of Wells Fargo Bank (plaintiff s predecessor interest). The note in and trust deedwere not offered into evidenceby either party, but both partiesagreedthat therewas no issuethat defendantwas the owner of the property before foreclosure

for instance:(All referencesare to the Civil Code) 22. Plaintiff testified shecooperated evidenceto the contrary was presentedby the plaintiff.20A9. See.@ proceedings took place.. plaintiff statedno monetary damagesare sought. Under this program defendantwas to make trial payments of approximately$637. LEGAL ISSUES: There are no legal issuesto be decided.00per month. It was undisputedthat defendantfailed to make a certain number of payments betweenAugust and December.2.so far as it is not repugnantto or inconsistent orthe Constitutionor laws of this State. but many (if not all) of the principles of equity have beenincorporatedinto California Codes. When defendanttenderedher July 20lA payment it was refused. and if the paymentswere made without a default then her loan would be refinancedin such a way that paymentswould be due on a monthly basisand would remain at the $637. Defendantmade her paymentsas required. There are no longer the separate Courts of Law and Equity because two are mergedin America.00. and EQUITABLE ISSUES: The only equitableissueis whetheror not plaintiff is entitledto a writ of possession. None of the reasonsstated completely with Wells Fargo..also referredto as Courts of Equity. Following Wells'refusal to acceptthe July 2010 payment. After defendantfailed to make her payments.real property has beenheld to be unique (See 3387 below) and in England.is with the Con stitution of the United States.Each paymentwas approximately$908.00level. . No appears legitimate. On the record. Wells Fargo correspondence claims a number of reasonsthe program was terminated. EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES: Sincethe times of Courtsof Equity'in early'England. The exact amountsvaried somewhatdependingupon sumsneededto keep escrow money in balance. Shemissedno payments.the propertywas foreclosedon and this unlawful detaineraction has now been filed by the purchaserat the sale.Wells Fargo and plaintiff worked togetherto put togethera refinancing plan called the "HOME AFFORDABLE MORTGAGE PROGRAM". The common law of England. in open court. the rule of decisionin all the courtsof this State. The only relief sought is a writ of possession plaintiff s counselagreedthis type of relief is equitablein nature. It is. The principles theseCourts createdhave beenhandeddown through the centurysand still guide the Courts in today's moderntimes. It is uncontested that FHLMC was the buyer at the foreclosure sale.mattersrelatedto foreclosurewere long within the province of the Courts of Chancety.

Also admissibleunderPG&E -v. Exh.upon making full compensation the to other party. Exh.No Obj. I . 3366. By takingpossession a thing. Exh.:'.3. or by ajudgment to requiring the other party to perfect the title. E .Docs relateto Home Affordable Plan.). I . BloombergNews Articles . J.and deliveringit of to a claimant. a party thereto incurs a forfeiture. hearsay.. relevance and hearsay.Exh. A personentitled to specific real property. and summaryof cumulative evidence. Preventiverelief is given by prohibitinga party from doing that which ought not to be done.Obj.may recoverthe samein the mannerprescribedby the CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. Obj. D . or fraudulentbreachof duty. by plaintiff. relevance and foundation.or res gestae.by the terms of an obligation..Obj. hearsay and relevance.(phonelog and summaryof voluminous evidence). 3375 .Obj. 3275. H .Operative facts.ThomasDrayage. Obj.nor to enforcea penal law. Obj.Obj.Wells Fargo servicing. Whenever. he may be relieved therefrom. C . By compelling a party himself to do that which ought to be done. and to deliver possession the of property. res gestae. except in a caseof nuisanceor as otherwiseprovided by law.As a generalrule.obj. 3368. Specificorpreventive relief may be given as providedby the laws of this state. Exh. The exhibit corraborates testimonywhich is admissibleunderPG&E -v.Exh.otherwisethan by an award of damages. or. G .Exh. by reasoneither of a perfected title. lodged.Obj overruled. (Kennerty signedpapersin presentcase. Specificrelief is given: I .Exh. relevance and hearsay. sustained. relevance.Obj. Relevance. except in caseof a grosslynegligent.Thomas Drayage for corraboration. sustained.Deposition of Kennerty.iii as set forth herein: Exh A .does not rely on anythingfrom this depo.Obj. F .Obj.ovemrled.Obj ovem¡led.j r-ri ' All of detbndansevidenceu'as objectedto b¡ plaintitTa¡rdall >aidobjections¡¡e . This opinion.t327q.Neither specific nor preventiverelief can be grantedto enforcea penalty or forfeiture in any case.ThomasDrayage. compensation the relief or remedyprovided is by the law of this Statefor the violation of private rights. Exh. By declaring and determiningthe rights of parties.'rr -is. hearsayand relevance. ovemrled. or of a claim to title which ought to be perfected. K .Exh. 3367. or a loss in the nature of a forfeiture. 3369. however. by reasonof his failure to comply with its provisions. ovem¡led.Docs are operativefacts.2. and the meansof securingtheir observance. B No obj.Ltrby FreddieMac. be executedby the Sheriff. and specific and preventiverelief may be given in no other casesthan thosespecifiedin this Part of the CIVIL CODE. either by a judgment for its possession. er¿le. Issuesin depoare identical. The exhibit corraborates testimonywhich is admissible underPG&E -v.willful. Obj.No obj.

Specificperformance consideration the for of the following cases:I . Specific performancecannotbe enforcedin favor of a party who has not on fully and fairly performed all the conditionsprecedent his part to the obligation of the other party. favor of a seller who cannotgive to the buyer a title free from reasonable so of 3510. surprise.If his or assentwas given under the influence of mistake. or. is this presumptionis a presumption affectingthe burdenof proof. shouldthe rule itself.misapprehension. as to him.An agreement the saleof propertycannotbe specificallyenforcedin doubt.''& that the breachof an agreement transferreal property to 3387. .When the reason a rule ceases. If he hasnot receivedan adequate was obtained 3. party to whom performancewould becomedue under the contract. for 3394.or unfair practicesof any concealment.4.or by any promiseof suchparty which hasnot beensubstantially fulfilled. and either in entirely immaterial. If his assent circumvention. of 3517. proper to be so enforced. 3512. contract. by the misrepresentation. [t is to be presumed In relievedby pecuniarycompensation.upon full compensation default.He who consents an act is not wrongedby it. 3523. 3392. which casespecif-rc being made for the performancemay be compelled. in 35 16. in exceptthat where the contractprovides for compensation caseof mistake. and the mistake within the scopeof such provision may be compensated if contractspecifically enforcedin other respects.\f it is not. exceptwhere his failure to perform is only partial. just and reasonable.a for.this family dwelling which the party seeking presumption conclusive.In all othercases.One must not changehis purposeto the injury'of another. to 3515.Acquiescence error takesaway the right of objectingto it. the caseof a singlecannotbe adequately performance intendsto occupy.2.or capableof being fully compensated.For every wrong thereis a remedy.No one can take advantage his own wrong. cannotbe enforcedagainsta party to a contractin any 3391.

Arnold v. App.Cheney Trauzettel. supra. 169 Cal. 33. 123 Hellerv.supra. supra.2d 611. 110P.2d158. Cuyas.2d 447.That which ought to havebeendoneis to be regarded done.even though the alleged causecontainedtherein grows out of the subjectmatter involvedin the originalsuit. App.2d524.642: Gray v. 194.159. LakesidePark Assn.2d 804.531.299. considerations an unlawful detainersuit. supra. Robinson.2d may defeatthe very purpose the statute. Oil Co. 146.) The generalrule. Keithly. Proc. admissiblein an action in unlaw. 653. Krigbaum. 143. under this generalrule a tenantis not permitted to interposea defenseusual or permissiblein ordinary actions at law. Cal.697.19 Cal.411. I 058.64Cal.)As observedin LakesidePark.App . 423. Arnold v. Franklin. 550: Pico v.zd 221. has t\yo recognizedexceptions. 198P. (Smith v. 60 625.2dp.The purposeof this rule is to preventtenantswho have violated the covenantsof their leasesfrom frustrating the ordinary and summaryremedy provided by statutefor the (AbstractInvestment restitutionof the premises.Rptr. of Kelseyvillev.LakesidePark Assn.512:Rishwain Smith.423.2d v. 145. ll2 Cal." of at p.zd418.The first exceptionis possession where the tenant has voluntarily surrendered before the issuesof fact are P finally joined.App.the rationaleunderlying the generalrule evaporates and is the action thus becomesan ordinary one for damages. Investment v.l4l P.227.77Cal. ANALYSIS r'[An unlawful detainer action is a summaryproceeding.334P. (Fontana Industries Western v. Keithly.2d347:Abstract . Krigbaum. Melliday.305: P. t46 P.110P. Robinson. Krigbaum.App.App.nor affirmative defenses.309.2d 689. 423.App.207-20822P. Black.43 CaL.204 Cal.App. Maier &Zobelein Brewery. 525-527 84 555:Stromv.422. seeCodeCiv. Co. 193 Cal291 295in v.) Accordingly.2d620. 146P. Manninav.2d 242. Klein .69P. Cal.193.App. 169 Cal.39 P. 146.296 . at p. Co.App.Knowles v.2d v.) The basisfor this exceptionis that sincethe right to possession no longer in issue.248. neithera counterclaim nor a cross-complaint.175P.) Accordingly.Knowlesv. sincethe sole issuebeforethe court is the right to possession. supra.2d 1055.App. 387. (Arnold v.146p. 387P. Fralick. 205.2d78. a general rule hasemerged that. (SeeSchubert Lowe.2d833. hou'el'er. performanceis due. Whyers.5l8.223 550: Johnson Chelv. App.and reiteratedin Knowles.Rptr.43 Cal.48CaL 639. Markhamv.8l Cal.221P..in f'avorof as him to whom. Hutchinson. 296. supra. 60 Cal..s 1161.the primary purposeof which is to obtain the possession real propertyin the cases of specifiedby statute.658.2 Cal. and againsthim from whom. "The reasonfor this rule is that the injecting of other issuesextrinsic to the right of possession (43 Cal. IJnion 126P.422. 88 Cal. 9 832).280:Knightv. 26. P. (Servaisv.36Cal.ful ffie detainer.3529.v.2d408.169 Cal. 167 Cal. 83.36. Grain Co.22 Cal.2Cal.v. Hutchinson. The secondexception is that which permits the court to inquire into equitable v.

prohibits a tenantfrom interposinga defensewhich doesdirectly relate to the issueof possession retentionof the premises.22 Cal.] Neither Knowles.Plaintiff presented evidenceto the contrary. but that his occupation was under an oral agreement to lease. in Rishwain.) In Schubert. defendant the was permittedto raise the equitabledefensethat the tenancywas not a month-to-month tenancyas allegedby the plaintiff.72 l-723. supra.)" (Union Oil Co.295. (See3275 above). was inducedto enter he into the leaseupon which the landlord was relying through deceptionand imposition practicedupon the tenant by the landlord.In Johnson. propertyand. supra. was that the relationshipwas not that of landlord and tenant.defendantFlood haspresented by with a refinancingplan proposed plaintiff and plaintiff s predecessor in accordance evidenceshe was not in default and that payments Wells Fargo.52l.supra. in supra. is to Prior to the passingof the Common Law Procedure Act (J7 and l8 Vict./.Because payment . [Footnoteomitted.5I9. similarly. at upon somedistinct groundof equitable 313.3d616.632-634. if established.) 23 Cal. supra. 248. in Pico. 552.] is thata defense the subjectmatter' of the original suit is generallyexcludedin an unlawful detaineraction which the unlawful detainer if suchdefenseis extrinsic to the narrow issueof possession. Plaintiff has presented missedbefore the work out plan was proposedwere to be addedto the balancedue on her no note when the note was rewritten.2d242.)'and that 'lt hasalso been construed meana defense to which a court of equity would recognizeor one founded jurisdiction.App. Rptr. SuperiorCourt (1974) l0 questionof possession.however.)'(P. pleadedand proved that as a part of Similarly." relevantto the ultimate Cal. 309. Lakesidenor any other Californiadecision. (Citation.but a sale of an interestin (Seealso Henderson Allen."(193 Cal. The equitabledefenseurged in Manning.The would resultin the tenant's and which.)In AbstractInvestment.language Gray. Rptr. procedure seeksspeedilyto resolve.[Footnoteomitted.) evidencethat her paymentswere made In the presentcase.'(Citation. with approval.247-248. that it was a partnership.223 P. at p. Chandler and the entire line of cases thesedecisions "The basicteachingof Knowles.the agreedto leasethe building in which the business tenantwas perrnittedto show that. being alreadyin possession.the Supreme Court cited. supra. to the end that exactjustice be done.) In Schubert. 125)would havebeencognizableonly in a court of equity. Under defeats the it is clearthat to awardplaintiff a writ of possession suchcircumstances. abovebecause will clearly work a forfeitureand it equitableprinciplesthat are discussed the it is axiomaticthat "the law abhorsa forfeiture". c.22Cal.the defendants the considerationfor the purchase the plaintiffs' mercantilebusiness plaintiffs of the was located. v.3d 716. v. supra204 Cal. is thrustof the Knowles' line of cases basicallyto preventtenantsfrom fiustratingthe of matter: decisions the introduction extraneous through summan'statutor)'remedv directll' accomplish this objectiveby confining the unlawful detaineraction to issues (Greenv.It was observed that 'An equitabledefense (a) defense an action on groundswhich. normally permittedbecause it'arises out of reflect. at p. (1970)4 CaLApp.supra.that in an unlawful detaineraction the equitablepowers of the court may not be extended "into a firll examinationof all the equitiesinvolved.Lakeside.

(Ibid.Jur. Vendorand Purchaser 633 et seq.Plaintiff had actualnotice of defendant's rights underthe to "Affordable Home Loan Plan" agreement redeemand cure the default.failure to comply with the notice requirements a groundto cancelthe saleonly is as against party who is not a bona fide purchaser.2d 493. Summaryof California Law (9th ed.The court found: "Although the extentof the defect is not determinative.Rptr.77 Am. 877.) (Emphasis I In the instant case. during the trial no evidenceat all was of .233 Cal.233 Cal. (Little v..)In such instances trustor then bearsthe burdenof showing that there are groundsfor equitable a relief from the deed such as fraud or that the buyer was not a bona fide purchaserfor value. the deedhas been found void on the basisthat the deedshowedthat the recitalswere not valid.) Where such recitalsappearon the face of a deedbut the deedalso setsforth facts which are inconsistent with the recital of regularity.page411.) Where no such recitals as to the regularity of a sale appearin a deedand there was a defectin the notice to the trustor. and without acfualor of constructive notice of another's rights. and to retain to title and possession said property. (lbid.Inc. CFS Service 188Cal.)"4 Witkin.App. LLC (2001)8 CalAnp.)" (Dimocky.App.publication. (1985)175 Cal. 143P.Rptr. in good faith.4th 868.923. Rptr. Furthermore.the court reviewedthe California cases which considered whetherdefects in noticewhich madea foreclosure salevoid or voidable.Defendantso testifiedand plaintiff presented no evidence the contrary. supra.and that therewere also defectsin notice..3d "The voidable..@ of sumsdue goesdirectly to the right of possession suchevidencein the presentcaseis fully admissible and bearsdirectly on the equitableconsiderations the Court must that makein order to make its decisionon whetheror not to grant equitablerelief. $ 1987) RealProperty."(Id..what seemsto be determinativeis the existence and effect of a conclusivepresumption regularityof the sale.923. may direct the trusteeto include in the deedto the property recitalsthat notice was given as required under the deedof trust and statethat such recitals shall be proof of the truthfulness conclusive and regularitythereof.A deedof trust.576-577. at CFS Service Coip.lapue Gor-MeyWest.supra. other In words.) Only where recitals of regularity appearin the deedand no contrar)-recitals are madehave notice defectsbeenfound to make a deedvoidable. the deedhas been found void.App. saleto a bona fide purchaser not a A is (|. citing Holland v. rather than void.2d. (1943)61 Cal.(Ibid. atpages1358-1359. DISCUSSIONRE BONAFIDE PURCHASERFOR VALUE Section2924 of the Civil Code creates conclusivepresumptionin favor of a a bonafide purchaserat a trustee'ssalethat if the trustee'sdeed recitesthat all requirements of law havebeencompliedwith regardingthe mailing posting. 1359.? {.188Cal.plaintiff was fully awareof the agreementupon which defendant relied to cure her default. EmeraldProperties Added).2d 570. atp. which of binds the trustor." v.3d Coip. Pendleton Mtge. 608.App. (Emphasis Added) (SeeTrusts. 1359.the recital is conclusive.3d p.or personal deliveryof the notice of defaultand the notice of sale.233 Cal. 620-621.) $ In Little v. Co. 923. 206.) elements bona fide purchaseare paymentof value.

SantaCruz CountyTitle Co. I 987) SecurityTransactionsin Real Property.App.3d v. Whitehead.2d393.Rptr.2d 77.2d760. or wherethere has been such a mistake that to allow it to standwould be inequitableto purchaser parties. any missed payments.826. Golino. such relief cannot be granted. :. 82. to the effect it was not. is the general rvherethere has been tiaud in the procurementof the tbreclosure decreeor rvherethe sale salehasbeen improperly. Cal.zd495.) A debtormay apply to a court of equity to set asidea trust deedforeclosure on allegationsof unfairnessor irregularity that.2d 404. affirmed the trial court's though the plaintiff debtor did not tenderpaymentof the arrearsprior to initiating the action.28P.2dat p.)"(Karlsenv.2l9 Cal.Jensen(2001)88 Cal. 230 Cal. supra.App. This argumentonly has merit if thereare.(1971) 15 Cal.138 P.67 P. v.204. any missedpaymentswere waived when plaintiff and Wells Fargoinvited plaintiff to participate their refi plan and then actedin bad faith in contravention the very plan of in they proposed. In an unlawful detainer action. l17. (Shimpones Stickney.) appellate judgment settingasidea trustee's sale. Sacramento . Touli v. the paymentsmissedat that time were to be added to the principal sum owned and not paid in one large sum.)"(J v.268.3371'. 285. 161 Carpenter 70 213P.649.290.59 Cal.. 151.Crummerv.'(Bankof America etc.and.App.2d 264.753.735.4th1093.2d673. in generalin equity owing is essentialto an action " [a] valid and viable tender of paymentof the indebtedness v.App.) The proper forum for this type of issueis a quiet title suit in the jurisdiction of a Court of GeneralJurisdiction.$ The court supraat 149.666. Land BankAssn. Law (9th ed. Defendantwas not in default of the proposedplan until plaintiff or Wells Fargo refusedto acceptdefendant'stendered payment.581--582.277 Court(1991)227Cal.I i presented demonstrate to that plaintiff paid anythingof value for the propertyor the note. Defendanthas not moved to cancelthe sale. unfairly or unlawfully conducted.App 20 Cal. even then. 576.(Sierra-BayFed.2d .App. In such a Court all issuescan be joined including potential cancellationof the foreclosuresale. P. 248.2d355. and 101 P. there are exceptionsto the rule. Superior 3 Witkin. AmericanSay. However. coupledwith the inadequacyof price obtainedat the sale.66 7.40 Cal. havepo\\er to vacate i-¡rec-:=*:: "It rule thatcourts Furthermore. 499. Bankv. 133 CaL 659. defendantcould not make such a demand. Cal.65 Cal.McClevetry. Copseyv.Py v.15 Cal. Hamilton. to cancela voidablesaleundera deedof trust. Assn. P.1097-1098.2d 149. Reidy. As the Court has noted above.161 Cal.3d ll2. In fact.App. It appears the Court that defendanthas met the burdenof showing that plaintiff was not to a bona fide purchaserfor value. DISCUSSION RE THE TENDER REQUIREMENT points and authoritiesthat in essence make the argumentthat Plaintiff presented defendantcannotproduce any evidenceunlessshe hastenderedfull paymentof all moniesin arrears.119P.The appellatecourt found that thejudgment itself satisfiedthe tenderrequirement . in an unlawful detaineraction. fails.& Loan Assn.Rptr.or is tainted by fraud. HumboldtSavings 637. Bank. Pleitner. Sumrnaryof Cal. As defendanttestified. It follows that full tenderwas made and the argumentof plaintiff.Mack v.2d v. 318. in fact.App 731.even pages1097-1099.mean that it is appropriateto invalidatethe sale.

and should.plaintiff is not without a remedysincethis judgment is without prejudiceto the continuationof relevantlitigation in the proper forum.or a further agreement order of the Court.00 which shall apply to the first monthsmoneydue following the datethis judgment is served. as Wells Fargo. It canjoin. It allows for a crosscomplaint. her name. parties. The Court shall retainjurisdiction over the partiesfor the purposeof enforcingor modifying this judgment.as to the of defendant. and.Defendantis to establishthis accountand maintain it in defendants upon funher litigation. Thosemissedpaymentsmay be addedto the balancein her refinancing Wells to if arrangement plaintiff decides finalizethe refi plan. will consistof placingthe sum of $637. Defendantshall not be requiredto place into the account. The distributionof this accountshall depend betweenthe partiesreducedto writing and signedby the parties. Court will denyjudgment in favor of plaintiff on the the unlawful detaineraction and orderjudgmentfor defendant who is entitledto possession of the premises. This accountis to be established within 30 daysof the date this judgment is served.the Court expectsthe partiesto agreethat taxesdue may be withdrawn and proofof deposit eachpe\ne:: for paid. someof which were discoverytime limits for the issues party.resolveall issueswhich can be broughtto the Court by eitherparty u'hile providing appropriate involved. and shall do so by certified letter to defendantand a pleading filed with the Court. The presentCourt is not oblivious to the fact that defendantis not entitled to continuepossession the propertywithout doing equity. Equity in this case. * in that as a condition of settingasidethe trustee'ssaleand trustee's deedthe debtorwas requiredto tenderthe amountin arrears. Defendantis to make eachsuch paymentso that a review of the accountpaperwork on the 3rd of eachmonth shall show the paymentrequiredhas been made.the Court is not being askedto setaside the trustee's saledue to plaintiffs fraud.as well as a complaint. for instance. under the foregoingfacts and authorities. Defendant shallprovideto plaintiff s counsel as and the court apprised to the identi$' of their made. but saidretentionis madewithout prejudiceto the filing of . This judgment is madewithout prejudiceto eitherparty filing suit in a casewithin the GeneralUnlimited Jurisdictionof the El DoradoCounty SuperiorCourt. which can resolvethe concerns all of well asprovide relief.00per month into a bank account monthly payments to whosepurposeshall be solely to collect fundsneeded accumulate that should have beenpaid on the revised note had Wells Fargo not improperly refused tender of payment.Sincethe deposits included. The initial depositshall be $637.As indicated. Defendantshall not withdraw any funds from this accountfor any purpose without court approval or a stipulation signedby both parties.the Court hastaken undersubmission the evidenceand argumentsoffered at trial and has considered relevant law. Sucha suit can. Defendantshall keepthe PITI. Rather.as an interested raisedin the presenttrial. Plaintiff shall keepdefendant counselor agent at all times. with escrows represent taxeson the propertypaid and current.Here. both legal and equitable. (See3523 above). by the any sumsrepresenting paymentsmissedbeforethe refinancingplan was proposed Fargo..

b*rq n I .furtherlitigationasdescribed funherlitigationbe commenced. in Respectfully submitted by: Dat edi:l . Should this will welcome motionto consolidate a bothactions a Courtof unlimitediurisdiction.f f i .1lf.] D _rgdftr^J h"lol]__ ANDREwwoLL D. JUDGE rEM PRo O. Court above.