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 Rulings on 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

VELAZQUEZ VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC.

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

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2021

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

OSCAR ESCOBEDO, ET AL. VS EMANATE HEALTH MEDICAL CENTER , ET AL.

J of the Pomona Courthouse, for all purposes except trial. Department 1 hereby delegates to the Independent Calendar Court the authority to assign the case for trial to that Independent Calendar Court. Any pending motions or hearings, including trial and status conferences, will be reset, continued or vacated at the direction of the newly assigned Independent Calendar court.Plaintiff shall give notice.

  • Hearing

    Nov 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

CATHAY BANK VS ACE HARDWARE CORPORATION

Janovsky testified that he was mainly concerned with whether Defendant Ace was going to get the racks for its promotion and was merely thinking of things from the perspective of a merchant and not from a legal perspective. (Id. at ¶ 4, Ex. C.) Mr. Janovsky also testified that he was not aware that the request by Defendant JMI for the name change could have affected the receivership. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2020

CHANGLIANG DAI VS THOMAS CHEN, ET AL.

Chen advised Plaintiff that he had been operating a successful business, Tissuesco Group (“Tissuesco”), for many years and could assist Plaintiff to open a business and obtain a visa. On or around March 24, 2018, the parties signed a contract, in which Plaintiff agreed to invest $120,000.00 to Tissuesco and, in return, Tissuesco would open, operate and manage a company for Plaintiff and assist Plaintiff in applying for an L-1 visa.

  • Hearing

    Nov 02, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

MANUEL ALEJANDRE VS CAL-VILLA ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

(Rule 3.1312) The case management conference scheduled for September 25, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 11B will remain. Ross 9/18/2020 ……………… Directions for Contesting or Arguing the Tentative Ruling: Tentative rulings for Law and Motion will be posted electronically by 1:30 p.m. the day before the hearing.

  • Hearing

    Oct 28, 2020

IN THE MATTER OF ROBERT A. MATTHEWS

For general information regarding Judge Lund and his courtroom rules and procedures, please visit: http://www.judgerogerlund.com.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Family Law

  • Sub Type

    Conservatorship

ANGELA WATSON VS GILBERT A. CABOT

Defendants also move to strike irrelevant allegations, as well as Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees as there are no grounds for such request, and punitive damages as Plaintiff has pled no malice, oppression, or fraud. DISCUSSION As a preliminary matter, Defendants’ request for judicial notice of the December 5, 2019, Minute Order and the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JINGXUAN ZHANG VS HUMMINGBIRD NEST ENTERTAINMENT CORP

Labor Code §§ 201-203 On August 20, 2018, Plaintiff filed an Amendment to Complaint, wherein Yiping Ye (“Ye”) was substituted in for Doe 1. On March 18, 2019, Hummingbird’s answer was stricken. On March 27, 2019, Hummingbird’s default was entered. On May 9, 2019, the court granted, inter alia, Plaintiff’s ex parte application for amendment to complaint. On August 7, 2019, Ye’s default was entered. An Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to Proceed with Default Judgment is set for October 19, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

PNC EQUIPMENT FINANCE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS SANTIAGO MENDOZA MUNIZ, AN INDIVIDUAL

Muniz (20PSCV00337) _____________________________________________ Plaintiff PNC Equipment Finance, LLC’s APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT Tentative Ruling Plaintiff PNC Equipment Finance, LLC’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

CHUAN JUN LI VS QI ZHAO

Zhao (KC070595) _____________________________________________ Plaintiff Chuan Jun Li’s APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT Tentative Ruling Plaintiff Chuan Jun Li’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

ARMEN G KOJIKIAN ET AL VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO INC

The Settlement Agreement does not release claims for personal injury, property damage other than to the Class Vehicles, or claims for subrogation.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

(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 October 14, 2020. Discussion Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice. The court notes that the lease provided for a $69,804.04 security deposit.

  • Hearing

    Oct 14, 2020

BELINDA AGUILAR, ET AL. VS TG PROPERTIES LLC

At the direction of Department 1, this case is hereby ordered reassigned and transferred to the South Central District, Compton, the Honorable Maurice Leiter, Judge presiding in Department A, 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

    Oct 13, 2020

ESTATE OF EUGENIA NG

RE: PET’N FOR WITHDRAWAL OF FUNDS FROM BLOCKED ACCOUNT FILED ON 05/26/20 BY JUDITH NG PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Petition Approved Proposed Order Submitted No Appearance Required PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1. Appearances 2. Verified declaration by petitioner to state names, current addresses and relationships of all persons entitled to receive notice. LR 7.112 3.

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: PET’N TO DECLARE THE 2007 RESTATEMENT OF TRUST & 2019 INSTRUCTIONS FILED ON 05/26/20 BY RHONDA BRINK

Proposed Order Note: Petition to Approve First and Final Account of Trustee filed by Teresa L. Coleman is set for hearing 12-10-2020. BOWMAN FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST RHONDA BRINK RONALD B.

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

ESTATE OF KATHERINE L LOFORTE-DELGADILLO

RE: CASE MANAGMENT (CONSOLIDATED CASE) SET BY JUDGE FANNIN ON 9/25/19 DEMURRER ORDER PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances to report status PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances Note: It appears this petition is moot.

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

ESTATE OF KATHERINE L LOFORTE-DELGADILLO

Have a Judicial Council Form Notice of Hearing and copy of petition mailed to all persons entitled to receive notice and file a Proof of Service with court. 5. Proposed Order PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Moving paper is in Vol. 2 Need: 1. Appearances 2. Accounting that complies with PrC § 1060 et seq. Accounting must begin with date of death values ($1,928,502.34). Accounting begins $1,928,467.08. 3. Further support for reimbursement to Atty.

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: FIRST AND FNL ACCOUNTING FOR STATUTORY AF AND PERSONAL

REPRESENTATIVE FEES FILED ON 08/15/19 BY NOEL CODY CROCKETT PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances Notes: 1. Letters of Administration issued to Noel Crockett 1-29-19. 2. Objection file...

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

PETITION OF CHUN CHAK BENEDICT CHU

RE: OSC RE: NAME CHANGE FILED BY CHUN CHAK BENEDICT CHU PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Petitioner still must do the following: File a Proof of Publication of Order to Show Cause For Change of Name CHUN CHAK BENEDICT CHU PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: Proposed Order BLAINE W PACINI JOSEPH M STARITA OLIVER W. BRAY PAMELA R REGATUSO OLIVER W. BRAY REVOCABLE TRUST OF ROBERT J.

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (ACCOUNTING SET BY D14 ON 1/15/20

For filed is incomplete. 11. File a verified declaration to clarify whether you have attended the orientation class for unlicensed conservators pursuant to LR 7.416 12. File a verified declaration to complete petition item # 4.c. (whether proposed conservatee is a member of a federally recognized Indian tribe) 13. Submit a completed Order Appointing Probate Conservator Form GC-340 (adopted 1- 15-16) 1.

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: PET’N FOR FINAL DISTRIBUTION AND FOR STLMT OF FIRST AND FINAL ACCT FILED ON 05/13/20 BY BABARA WAGNER

Petition states it was to cover the tax liability. 10. Notice of Filing Inventory & Appraisal Form GC-042 filed and Proof of Service re: same PrC § 2610 11. Submit a proposed Order PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: Original financial account statement(s) as required by PrC § 2620(c) (2), (3) for LPL account

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • 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.