To The Honorable Judge of The Superior Court and All Other Unlawful Detainor

TO CONSOLIDATE CASES; AND EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR MOTION TO
CONSOLIDATE SUPERIOR COURT CASE –LIMITED CIVIL
NO.
UD CASE No.:-
2010
00
353264
WITH SUPERIOR COURT CASE
UNLIMITED CIVIL
NO.
Fraud Case No.:
_______________________________
AND
TRO
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES
Date:
June ________
2010
Time:
________________
Dept.
_________________
Depart: C15
UD
CASE No:
NNN
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
TO CONSOLIDATE CASES.
1
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES AND REQUEST FOR STAY
_________________________________
_______________________________
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT AND ALL OTHER
PARTIES IN I
NTEREST:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN
that on
June ___________
, 20
10
at
1:30
pm, in
Department
___________
of the Superior Court of California, County of Orange
located at
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE 700 West
Civic Center Drive Santa Ana, CA
92702
Plaintiff
BRAD G. MILLER
moved the court
for an Order transferring the above
entitled matter to the Superior Court U
nlimited Civil
Plaintiff
respectfully applies to the court for a Motion to Consolidate Cases and
an ex parte application for order to
consolidate the two

cases.
This application is made
on the grounds that such an order is necessary to effectuate the correct venue and
provide the due process of the law for the
Plaintiff
per statutes and to
maintain and
protect h
is
interest in her prope
rty.
This application is made
pursuant to the moving papers attached hereto, the
complaint, all documents in the court file, and any
oral
argument that may be give
n at
e hearing on the matter.
Dated:
June _______
, 2010
____________________________
eorge Holland Jr.
Holland Law Firm
Attorney for
Brad G. Miller
5
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
page
_________________________________
_______________________________
GEORGE HOLLAND, ESQ. (CSB No. 216735)
HOLLAND LAW OFFICES
1970 Broadway, Suite 1030
Oakland, Ca. 94612
Telephone: 510
-
465
4100
Facsimile: 510
465
4747
Attorney for Plai
ntiff
BRAD G. MILLER
SUPERIOR
COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY
OF ORANGE, CENTRAL
JUSTICE CENTER
Time:
__________
Department:
______________
,
Judge
:___________________
BRAD G. MILLER
Plaintiff,
Vs.
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL
TRUST
ONE WEST BANK,
INDYM
AC BANK, COUNTYOF
ORANGE CALIFORNIA
DOES 1
50, INCLUSIVE,
Defendants,
----------------------------------------------
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL
TRUST
Plaintiff,
Vs.
BRAD G. MILLER
Defendant
UD
CASE No:
30
2010
00
353264
CL
-
UD
CJC
NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTI
ON TO CONSOLIDATE
CASES.
AND
EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR
ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
SUPERIOR COURT CASE
LIMITED CIVIL
NO.
UD CASE
No.: 30
2010
00
353264
WITH SUPERIOR COURT CASE
UNLIMITED CIVIL
NO.
Fraud Case
No.: 30
2010
__________
____
AND TRO
AND
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES
DATE: JUNE _________, 2010
Time: 1:30 PM
Depart: C15
Dept:_____________
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
page
_________________________________
_______________________________
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT AND ALL OTHER
PARTIES IN INTEREST:
BRAD G. MILLER
respectfully applies to the
court for a Motion to Consolidate
Cases
and an
ex parte
application to consolidate the t
wo cases
and
a stay
temporary
restraining order
to maintain the status q
o pending the outcome
This application is
made on the grounds that such an order is necessa
ry to effectuate the correct venue
and provide the
due process of the law for M
iller
per statutes and to protect h
is
interest
in h
is
property.
The crux of the pending action is the determination of title which is essential to
execute unlawful detainer and
eviction. No evidence can be produced by
DEUTSCHE
BANK NATIONAL TRUST
to establish a prima facie unlawful detainer case. The matter
was taken in secret without service or notice to the defendant.
This emergency motion is necessary because the harm
il
ler
seek
to halt is
imminent. A temporary restraining order prohibiting and restraining
DEUTSCHE BANK
NATIONAL TRUST
is needed to prevent
BRAD G. MILLER
from an illegal
summary
motion judgment, illegal writ of possession and an illegal sherif
f’s eviction
and illegal
claim of title and being forcibly removed from h
is
home without notice or opportunity to
present competent evidence before the court due lack of due process from improper
service or lack of service.
The main
grounds for the appeal of the lim
ited court case on appeal are
that th
limited court case on appeal on denial of due process proceeding in limited
court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction, the evidence does not support the judgment, th
us
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TITLE
has no standing to bri
ng this
unlawful detainer
The counsel for plaintiff
DEUTSHCE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
in the limited case is
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
page
_________________________________
_______________________________
committing a fraud on th
court. Further th
e limited subject matter
court
wa
s induced to
violate its oath and commit fraud against the people of Ca
lifornia and the
defendant if
it
allows such fraudulent judgment to stand.
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
will
not be prejudiced because it had notice of the illegal claim and title dispute and has
recourse against the
Illegal sale. Th
is motion
to consol
idate the cases
is made on the grounds of the lack of
due process in limited matter is that M
iller
was never served either personally or by
substitute service with a notice of Summary judgment motion and hearing regarding any
unlawful detainer proceedings
in the above entitled matter.
MILLER
hereby files the within application to
consolidate the cases and
obtain
a temporary restraining order against
to stay
them from taking possession and transferring any interest
in the Subject Property
pendi
g the outcome of the complaint
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
INTRODUCTION
The Real Property address is
18212 Newmoon Lane, Huntington Beach, CA 92648
The Real Property
APN
15
-
233
14
Orange
ounty,
alifornia
(“Subject Property”)
An unlawful detainer action
case # 30
2010
00
353264
CL
UD
JC
was filed
on
March 12,
2010
in Limited Civil court.
On
June ________, 2010 MILLER
filed a complaint in UNLIMITED CIVIL court
against
t
he Unlawful Detainer Plaintiff
DEUTS
CHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
with
regards to the above real property. Additional defendants were listed in the
UNLIMITED CIVIL complaint
for
Wrongful Foreclosure, Violation of Financial Code
4973 (Predatory Lending), Conversion, Violation of Civil Code Section
2923.5, and
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
page
_________________________________
_______________________________
Wrongful Eviction.
The
unlimited
case is complex, with
Brad G. Miller
949
292
6009
complaining
against defendants
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST, ONE WEST BANK,
INDYMAC BANK, COUNTY OF ORANGE CALIFORNIA
REGIONAL TRUSTEE
SERVICES INC.,
DOES 1
50, inclusive.
APPLICATION FOR EX PARTE RELIEF IS NECESSARY
Why Ex Parte Relief Is
Necessary: This Application is made on the grounds that
the requested injunctive Order is necessary to avoid substantial, continuing and

irreparable harm to defendant who
will lose possession of h
is
PROPERTY if a
summary
motion, writ of possession and a
sheriff’s eviction is allowed to occur, a direct result of
violation of constitutional rights to due process and misleading the court to obtain a false
default unlawful de
tainer judgment. The facts are set forth in the Declaration of
Brad G.
Miller
, the pleading in this matter, and/or will be presented at the time of hearing and/or
trial.
Unless immediately restrained as requested in this application to maintain the
sta
tus quo,
Brad G. Miller
will suffer irreparable harm by loss of h
is
property and
displacement by forcible sheriff's eviction. Further, the cost to the court on error later
corrected to the favor of
is not as great as the
cost
to the court later to correct to M
iller
’s favor. This court has a mandatory duty to
STAY
the judgment
for lack of due process violation of foreclosure
The issue underlying th

ese
suit
is a title dispute and wrongful eviction from real
property; a rem
edy should
ille
be unsuccessful will not be lost. However,
has presented no evidence that
it
has acquired
possession with the right to evict since
it
has falsely alleged valid service on defendants
and obtained a default ju
dgment
in a unlawful detainer with violations of M
iller
’s due
process
BRAD G. MILLER
was denied due process by the lack of proper service and
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
page
_________________________________
_______________________________
proof of the primary issue of superior title is disputed. It is unlikely that
DEUTSCHE
BANK NATIONAL TRUST
wil
l be placed in much jeopardy, given the current nature of
the real estate market
Miller
believe
s
that
intentionally took advantage of their
standing as allegedly credible firm in the community
to
attempt to
wrongfully evict
iller
without proper service from h
is
unique property
Based upon legal and equitable considerations, this Court must
stay the
Default
Judgment
hearing and motions
to enjoin the
any
eviction
pending
to a
consolidation
with the unlimited matter to all
ow the parties
to set forth their respective claims. This
entire case
should
be vacated and dismissed
in the appeal or set aside for trial
because
there was no service of the summons
, complaint
, no service of the motion for summary
judgment, and no notic
e of the hearing date for the motion
iller
seeks an emergency order to quash the writ of possession in order to stay
the unlawful detainer eviction resulting from these illegal proceedings to preserve the
status quo and prevent irreparable harm by los
s of h
is
family home by immediately
pending wrongful eviction
When jurisdiction is challenged, the party claiming that the court has jurisdiction
has the legal burden to prove that jurisdiction was conferred upon the court through the
proper procedure.
Otherwise, the court is without jurisdiction. Whenever a party denies
that the court has subject
matter jurisdiction, it becomes the duty and the burden of the
party claiming that the court has subject matter jurisdiction
to provide evidence from
the recor
d of the case
that the court holds subject
matter jurisdiction.
Bindell v City of
Harvey 571 B,E, 2d 1017
Until

and other interested parties
submit
uncontroversial evidence of subject matter jurisdiction to the court that th
e court has
subject matter jurisdiction the court has proceeded without subject matter jurisdiction
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
page
8
_________________________________
_______________________________
and in violation of due process,
any
default judgment
motions and hearing
must not
allow the Subject Property to be liquidated
where
it violates d
ue proc
ess rights
on
appeal and the core issues are pending in the unlimited court
In this instance no one was properly served. Further
more, DEUTSCHE BANK
NATIONAL TRUST
lacks standing to pursue
their
unlawful detainer complaint.
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL T
RUST
purported deed is disputed. The court must
quash the s
ummons and
complaint
and void the judgment and revoke the writ of
possession.
may not claim a default judgment
without showing lawful proper proof of service and not

ice to
iller
iller
was not
served summons and complaint and had no notice of the hearing.
See attached
declaration of
BRAD G. MILLER
. T
he unlawful detainer court proceeded without
subject matter jurisdiction and without personal jurisdiction
and wit
hout due process
notice of the hearing
. The overlapping issues are the same in both cases and must be
consolidated and simultaneously determined.
POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES
SUPERIOR COURT
LIMITED CIVIL
IS NOT THE CORRECT VENUE
WHERE AS HERE, THE DAMAGE
S EXCEED THE
JURISDICTIONAL LIMITS OF THE COURT
In
Orange County
Superior Court Case No.
30
-
2010
___________
Plaintiff
Brad G. Miller
is seeking monetary damages arising from the fraudulent
&
wrongful
foreclosure of h
is
personal residence valued at approx
imately
750
,000
00.
Additionally, plaintiff is seeking
other compensatory and
punitive damages for fraud,
federal truth in lending violations, predatory lending, civil conspiracy,
PONZI,
breach of
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
page
_________________________________
_______________________________
fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, violations of business
and professions code
17200,
usury, slander of title, violations of home ownership equity protection act, civil RICO
violations of CA CIV CODE §1572, violations of CA CIV CODE §1788.17
and other
violations
against all defendants
including
DEUTSCHE BANK
NATIONAL TRUST, the
Plaintiff in the Unlawful Detainer action.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal stated in
Asuncion v. Superior Court of the
City of San Diego
(1980) 108 Cal.App.3d 141, 144, 166 Cal.
Rp
tr. 306, 308, in pertinent
part:
It is generally re
cognized 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.
Here, Defendant
Brad G. Miller
contends that on or about
ctober 13
2005,
loan
fraud was committed by the
predatory
subprime
lender
IndyMac Bank
in the refinance
transaction on the property at
18212 Newmoon Lane
Huntington Beach,
California
92
648
. The amount of the refi
nance
was
804
,000
00
Brad G. Miller
ad originally
purchased the subject property on or
about March 20
th 200
"Fraud" and "dishonesty" are closely synonymous, and "fraud" may consist in
misrepresentation or concealment of material facts or statement of fact made with the
consciousness
of its
falsity.
Fort v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance of State of Cal.
(1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 12, 185 Cal.Rptr. 836.
The law is well settled that 'representations made to one person with intention
that they will be repeated to another and acted upon by him
and which are repeated and
acted upon to his injury gives the person so acting the same right to relief as if the
representa
ions had been made to him directly. No reason appears why this same rule
should not be applicable to nondisclosures as well as misr
epresentations.
Massei v.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
page
10
_________________________________
_______________________________
Lettunich
(1967) 56 Cal.Rptr. 232, 235.
A duty of disclosure in a fraud context is one which may exist when one party to
a transaction has sole knowle
dge
or access to material facts and knows that such fac
are not known to or r
easonably discoverable by the other party.
Goodman v. Kennedy
(1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 134 Cal.Rptr. 375.
A duty to disclose arises, even in absence of a fiduciary or confidential
relationship, if material facts are known only to defendant and defendant kn
ows that
plaintiff does not know or cannot reasonably discover undisclosed facts.
Karoutas v.
HomeFed Bank
(1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 767, 283 Cal.Rptr. 809.
In
Asuncion
supra., the Fourth District Court of Appeal further stated in pertinent
part at page 146:
As we see it, after the eviction is transferred to the superior court, a
number of procedural devices exist to facilitate accommodating the eviction action with
the fraud action which the
Asuncions
separately filed. A possibility, which we
understand is f
requently utilized in other counties, is for the superior court to stay the
eviction proceedings until trial of the fraud action, based on the authority of Code of Civil
Procedure section 526 which permits a preliminary injunction to preserve the status q
uo
on such grounds as irreparable injury, multiplicity of legal actions, or unconscionable

relative hardship. We hold only, the Asuncions are entitled to defend this eviction action
based on the claims of fraud and related causes which they have asserted,
and
accordingly the action necessarily exceeds the jurisdiction of the municipal court and
cannot be tried there.
In
Asuncion
supra., the Fourth District Court of Appeal further stated in pertinent
part at page 146: As we see it, after the eviction is tra
nsferred to the superior court, a
number of procedural devices exist to facilitate accommodating the eviction action with
the fraud action which the
Asuncions
separately filed. A possibility, which we

To The Honorable Judge of The Superior Court and All Other Unlawful Detainor

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

To The Honorable Judge of The Superior Court and All Other Unlawful Detainor

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TO CONSOLIDATE CASES; AND EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR MOTION TO

CONSOLIDATE SUPERIOR COURT CASE –LIMITED CIVIL

WITH SUPERIOR COURT CASE

Fraud Case No.:

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES AND REQUEST FOR STAY