What is a Petition for Coordination?

“When civil actions sharing a common question of fact or law are pending in different courts, a petition for coordination may be submitted to the Chairperson of the Judicial Council, by the presiding judge of any such court, or by any party to one of the actions after obtaining permission from the presiding judge, or by all of the parties plaintiff or defendant in any such action.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 404.)

Legal Standard

“Coordination of civil actions sharing a common question of fact or law is appropriate if one judge hearing all of the actions for all purposes in a selected site or sites will promote the ends of justice taking into account whether the common question of fact or law is predominating and significant to the litigation; the convenience of parties, witnesses, and counsel; the relative development of the actions and the work product of counsel; the efficient utilization of judicial facilities and manpower; the calendar of the courts; the disadvantages of duplicative and inconsistent rulings, orders, or judgments; and, the likelihood of settlement of the actions without further litigation should coordination be denied.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 404.1; McGhan Med. Corp. v. Super. Ct. (Hogan) (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 804, 812.)

“A petition for coordination, or a motion for permission to submit a petition, shall be supported by a declaration stating facts showing that the actions are complex, as defined by the Judicial Council and that the actions meet the standards specified in Section 404.1.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 404.)

A “complex” case is an action that requires “exceptional judicial management to avoid placing unnecessary burdens on the court or the litigants and to expedite the case, keep costs reasonable, and promote effective decision making by the court, the parties and counsel.” (First State Ins. Co. v. Super. Ct. (Jalisco Corp., Inc.) (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 324, 332.) In deciding whether an action is a complex case, the court must consider, among other things, whether the action is likely to involve:

  1. Numerous pretrial motions raising difficult or novel legal issues that will be time-consuming to resolve;
  2. Management of a large number of witnesses or a substantial amount of documentary evidence;
  3. Management of a large number of separately represented parties;
  4. Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court; or
  5. Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision.

(Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.400(b).)

The court must consider all of the factors set forth in rule 3.400(b), but no one factor is necessarily determinative by its presence or absence. (Ford Motor Warranty Cases (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 626, 641.)

Procedure

“On receipt of a petition for coordination, the Chairperson of the Judicial Council may assign a judge to determine whether the actions are complex, and if so, whether coordination of the actions is appropriate, or the Chairperson of the Judicial Council may authorize the presiding judge of a court to assign the matter to judicial officers of the court to make the determination in the same manner as assignments are made in other civil cases.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 404.)

Useful Resources for Petition for Coordination

Recent Rulings on Petition for Coordination

1-25 of 10000 results

PRICE VS THE CITY OF ANAHEIM

As an initial matter, the City agrees that it will not enforce AMC § 4.05.100.0115, which requires immediate warrantless access to a STR; will not issue citations for failure to grant immediate access pending a trial in this case, pursuant to AMC § 4.05.140.020.0201(6); and will offer the City Council amendments to remove language providing for the issuance of citations for failure to grant immediate access.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2030

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY VS. SANTA ANA RV STORAGE, L.P.

Given that CCP § 1263.510 mandates compensation for lost goodwill for the owner of a business conducted on the property taken, the Court will not preclude such recovery in the absence of express exclusionary language in the lease. That being said, it is not clear that SARVS necessarily will be eligible for such compensation.

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2026

T-12 THREE, LLC VS. TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

Specifically, MaryJane is a plaintiff as to the First Cause of Action for Breach of Contract, the Second Cause of Action for Negligence, the Fourth Cause of Action for Breach of Express Warranty, and the Fifth Cause of Action for Breach of Implied Warranties. (Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the Third Cause of Action for Indemnity following the filing of Turner’s Motion.)

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2026

THE CITIES OF DUARTE VS STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD AND CITY OF GARDENA VS REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD

A peremptory writ of administrative mandamus shall issue under the seal of this Court, remanding the matter to Respondents and commanding Respondents to set aside the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System within the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles County, except for discharges originating from the City of Long Beach MS4, Order No. R4-2012-0175, NPDES No. CAS004001, as amended on June 16, 2015 by State Board Order WQ 2015-0075. 2.

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2021

VELAZQUEZ VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC.

No appearance is required at the hearing set for 6/21/19.

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2021

LONG-HIM TANG, ET AL. VS PATRICIA PONCE DE LEON

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT LONG-HIM TANG, a minor, by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, PO-YING LEUNG, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. PATRICIA PONCE DE LEON, et al., Defendants. CASE NO.: 19STCV07645 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT On March 5, 2019, plaintiffs Long-Him Tang, Po-Ying Leung, Tat-Ming Tang filed this action against Defendant Patricia Ponce de Leon and Does 1 through 20.

  • Hearing

    Mar 26, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

TRANSPORT FUNDING, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS ERK LOGISTICS INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

In actions for money damages a default judgment is limited to the amount demanded in the complaint.(See Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 824.) Plaintiff’s request for interest and attorney’s fees against ERK must be reduced based on the $29,717.00 damages figure. ANALYSIS Yes (12/21/20) Default Entered. (JC Form CIV-100.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 24, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK VS LUCILLE ROBINSON

Robinson (“Defendant”) and Does 1-10 for: Common Counts On January 22, 2021, Defendant’s default was entered. A Case Management Conference is set for March 18, 2021. Discussion Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is GRANTED, contingent upon Plaintiff’s filing of a Request for Dismissal of Does 1-10.[1] ANALYSIS Yes (1/22/21) Default Entered. (JC Form CIV-100.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 18, 2021

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

I.L.W.U. CREDIT UNION VS JOHN SUA, ET AL.

Credit Union’s APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT Tentative Ruling Plaintiff I.L.W.U. Credit Union’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice. Background Plaintiff I.L.W.U.

  • Hearing

    Mar 10, 2021

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Petition for Judicial Declaration—Civ. Code § 798.61(c) Civil Code section 798.61, subdivision (c)(1) states: “Thirty or more days following posting pursuant to subdivision (b), the management may file a petition in the superior court in the county in which the mobilehome park is located, for a judicial declaration of abandonment of the mobilehome. A proceeding under this subdivision is a limited civil case.

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2021

STEPHANIE GREENE VS LINDA PENA ET AL

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s application for default judgment is DENIED without prejudice. \

  • Hearing

    Feb 16, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

(“Defendant”) and Does 1-25 for: Unlawful Detainer On December 5, 2019, Defendant’s default was entered; that day, a clerk’s default judgment for possession only was filed. A Case Management Conference and an Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to Proceed with Default Judgment are set for January 14, 2021.

  • Hearing

    Feb 16, 2021

717 NOGALES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS NEW DIAMOND TRUCKING, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION AND, ET AL.

On January 30, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting a cause of action against New Diamond, Sweet & Cozy and Does 1-10 for: Unlawful Detainer On February 26, 2020, New Diamond’s default was entered. On June 22, 2020, Plaintiff dismissed Sweet & Cozy, without prejudice. An Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to Proceed with Default Judgment is set for February 11, 2021. Discussion Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

  • Hearing

    Feb 11, 2021

EARL BULL ET AL VS SUPERIOR MOBILITY INC ET AL

s Special Interrogatories, (Set 3) scheduled for 02/11/2021 are continued to 02/16/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 29 at Spring Street Courthouse. The Moving Party is ordered to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Feb 11, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

RICHARD WALTERS, ET AL. VS VASSAL BENFORD, ET AL.

“Indeed, no such amendment is necessary because the Legislature has declared that, “[e]xcept as otherwise expressly provided by statute, the community property is liable for debt incurred by either spouse ... during marriage ... regardless whether one or both spouses are parties to the debt or to a judgment for the debt.” ( Civ.Code, § 5120.110, subd. (a), emphasis added.)…As the court explained in NEC Electronics Inc. v.

  • Hearing

    Feb 10, 2021

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

(“Defendant”) and Does 1-25 for: Unlawful Detainer On December 5, 2019, Defendant’s default was entered; that day, a clerk’s default judgment for possession only was filed. A Case Management Conference and an Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to Proceed with Default Judgment are set for January 14, 2021.

  • Hearing

    Feb 06, 2021

WITHY, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS EUN M. LIN, INC., ET AL.

Lin, Inc. and Anthony Lin, scheduled for 2/5/2021 at 8:30 a.m. at Stanley Mosk Courthouse in Department 56 to 2/11/2021 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 56. Moving parties are ordered to give notice of this ruling. Dated this 5th day of February 2021 Hon. Holly J. Fujie Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Feb 05, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS. RX UNLIMITED,LLC ETAL

Dept. 56 On the Court’s own motion, the Court continues the hearing on the motion for an order staying civil discovery[1], filed by Defendants Rx Unlimited LLC, Brian Goldstein, and Clifton Braddy, scheduled for 2/5/2021 at 8:30 a.m. at Stanley Mosk Courthouse in Department 56 to 2/17/2021 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 56. Moving parties are ordered to give notice of this ruling. Dated this 5th day of February 2021 Hon. Holly J. Fujie Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Feb 05, 2021

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

V. L., ET AL. VS EVAN CARTER, ET AL.

FAHEY Judge presiding in Department 69 for all purposes except trial. Department 1 hereby delegates to the Independent Calendar Court the authority to assign the cause for trial to that Independent Calendar Court. Hearing on the above motion and any pending motions or hearings, including trial or status conferences, will be reset, continued or vacated at the direction of the newly assigned Independent Calendar Court.

  • Hearing

    Feb 04, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

UNIVERSITY OF LA VERNE VS YOUNG ACTORS CAMP, ET AL.

Young Actors Camp, et al. (20PSCV00040) _____________________________________________ Plaintiff University of La Verne’s APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT Tentative Ruling Plaintiff University of La Verne’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice. Background This is a collections case for $66,992.00.

  • Hearing

    Feb 04, 2021

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

DAVID ANGUIANO VS CONNECT STAFFING, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

The time set for the hearing may be at any time during that scheduled hearing day, or it may be necessary to schedule the hearing for another date if the Court is unable to accommodate all personal appearances set on that date. This rule is necessary to ensure that adequate precautions can be taken for proper social distancing.

  • Hearing

    Feb 04, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JOSE SALAZAR VS JOSE L MUNIZ

NEXT, IN REVIEWING THE COMPLAINT, THERE ARE NUMEROUS CAUSES OF ACTION FOR IIED AND NIED WHICH REQUIRE TESTIMONY AND SUPPORT FOR A CLAIMED AMOUNT OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS DAMAGES. THIS APPLIES WITH EQUAL EFFECT AS TO CAUSES OF ACTION FOR DAMAGES FOR TRESPASS. ADDITIONALLY, AN ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT MUST STATE THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES IN THE COMPLAINT. THIS WAS NOT DONE. FINALLY, FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES, THE COURT MUST HAVE EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENDANT’S ABILITY TO PAY.

  • Hearing

    Feb 04, 2021

JOSE SALAZAR VS JOSE L MUNIZ

IN REVIEWING THE COMPLAINT, THERE ARE NUMEROUS CAUSES OF ACTION FOR IIED AND NIED WHICH REQUIRE TESTIMONY AND SUPPORT FOR A CLAIMED AMOUNT OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS DAMAGES. THIS APPLIES WITH EQUAL EFFECT AS TO CAUSES OF ACTION FOR DAMAGES FOR TRESPASS. ADDITIONALLY, AN ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT MUST STATE THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES IN THE COMPLAINT. THIS WAS NOT DONE. FINALLY, FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES, THE COURT MUST HAVE EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENDANT’S ABILITY TO PAY.

  • Hearing

    Feb 04, 2021

V. L., ET AL. VS EVAN CARTER, ET AL.

FAHEY Judge presiding in Department 69 for all purposes except trial. Department 1 hereby delegates to the Independent Calendar Court the authority to assign the cause for trial to that Independent Calendar Court. Hearing on the Motion for Order Allowing Deposition of Prisoner and any pending motions or hearings, including trial or status conferences, will be reset, continued or vacated at the direction of the newly assigned Independent Calendar Court.

  • Hearing

    Feb 04, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

RE: PET’N FOR FINAL DISTRIBUTION ON WAIVER OF ACCOUNTING

FILED ON 09/04/20 BY CYNTHIA AKAGBOSU PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Petition Approved Proposed Order Submitted No Appearance Required CYNTHIA AKAGBOSU FIDELIS AKAGBOSU PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: Proof of mailing to all persons entitled to notice ALFONSO LOFTY MURRIE GERALD M TOMASSIAN RUBY LEE MURRIE

  • Hearing

    Feb 03, 2021

  • Judge

    Fenstermacher

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 400     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.