Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
“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.)
The petition to coordinate is also used to add-on a case discovered after the coordination trial judge is selected. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 404.4; Ford Motor Warranty Cases (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 626, 634.) The Court of Appeal has recognized that “the coordination statutes and rules expressly contemplate add-on cases.” (Ford Motor Warranty Cases (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 626, 639.)
“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 § 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:
(Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.400(b).)
“In deciding the request to coordinate [an add-on case], the court must consider the relative development of the actions and the work product of counsel, in addition to any other relevant matter.” (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.544(c).) A coordination judge could determine specific add-on cases are not suitable for coordination and decline to add substantively similar cases, “such as if the case is ready for trial, or some other feature distinguishes it from the cases in the coordination proceeding.” (Ford Motor Warranty Cases (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 626, 639.)
The Court of Appeal recognized the primacy of Rule 3.544(c) in a petition to coordinate an add-on case, stating “[t]hat primacy makes a good deal of sense where the proposed add-on cases have no meaningful differences from the cases already being coordinated. Where the cases are substantively alike, most other coordination standards — that is, the common question of law or fact predominating; efficient utilization of judicial facilities and manpower; the disadvantages of duplicative and inconsistent ruling — are unlikely to be different from those existing when the original coordination order was made. On the other hand, counsel may have devoted extensive resources in discovery and other trial preparation in some or many of the add-on cases, and those cases may have trial dates. Adding such cases to the coordination proceeding may result in costly duplication of efforts and delay in resolution of those cases.” (Ford Motor Warranty Cases (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 626, 637-638.)
“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.)
It appears the Defendant’s Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Petition to Coordinate filed March 12, 2018 was served on all parties to the cases included in the Petition to Coordinate and all parties to the cases included in the Notice of Add-on Cases. Furthermore, the March 12, 2018 filing states that the “Petitioner only seeks to coordinate the overlapping actions and issues in the Included Actions.”
CYPRESS SECURITY WAGE AND HOUR CASES
JCCP4963
Mar 22, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
In the individual case Stanley E. Jensen v. Bayer Pharmaceuticals, et al. Fresno County Sup. Ct. Case No. 16CECG01506, Defendant Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Bayer”) filed Notice of Submission to Coordinate and Stay Add-On Case on October 28, 2016 to coordinate that case to the coordinated JCCP Xarelto litigation. The Court granted the add-on petition.
XARELTO CASES
JCCP4862
May 16, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Chad Anderton, Carlos Jimenez, James Payer, Littler Mendelson, PC Ruling For the reasons set forth herein, the petition to coordinate the cases of Duarte v. Carl Karcher Enterprises, Inc., Los Angeles County Superior Court case number BC521683, and Patel, et al., v. Carl Karcher Enterprises, Inc., et al., Orange County Superior Court case number 30-2017-00923299, as add-on cases to JCCP Nos. 4537 and 4630 is denied.
CARL KARCHER WAGE AND HOUR CASES
CORD4537
Jan 30, 2018
Santa Barbara County, CA
Analysis Coordination of Add-on Cases The order of the Chair of the Judicial Council first requires this Court, as presiding coordination trial judge of the Hourly Cases, to consider the petition to coordinate as a request to coordinate add-on cases, and thereby to determine whether the Manager Cases are properly add-on cases under California Rules of Court, rule 3.544.
SHANNON HANSEN VS CARL KARCHER ENTERPRISES INC
1340452
Aug 24, 2010
Santa Barbara County, CA
EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS WAGE AND HOUR CASES PETITIONS TO COORDINATE ADD-ON CASES AND APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO STAY 1) Deny petition to coordinate the seven identified add-on cases; 2) Grant petition to coordinate Rincon case DISCUSSION I. Background In this coordinated action, Plaintiffs have sued their employer, Express Messenger Systems, Inc. dba Ontrac, for various wage and hour violations.
EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS WAGE AND HOUR CASES
JCCP4789
Jan 23, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendants’ alternative motion to coordinate the Duerst Action as an add-on will be denied.
CARL KARCHER WAGE AND HOUR CASES
CORD4537
Sep 13, 2011
Santa Barbara County, CA
A Status Conference Statement has been filed indicating Defendants’ Request to Coordinate Add-on Case is currently pending before Judge Cheng in San Francisco Superior Court. This matter is continued to Monday, April 24, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 8 for review regarding status of the case. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.
BALAZS, ET AL. VS. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, ET AL.
CVCV21-0198434
Jan 26, 2023
Shasta County, CA
A Status Conference Statement has been filed indicating Defendants’ Request to Coordinate Add-on Case is currently pending before Judge Cheng in San Francisco Superior Court. This matter is continued to Monday, April 24, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 8 for review regarding status of the case. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.
BALAZS, ET AL. VS. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, ET AL.
CVCV21-0198434
Jan 22, 2023
Shasta County, CA
A Status Conference Statement has been filed indicating Defendants’ Request to Coordinate Add-on Case is currently pending before Judge Cheng in San Francisco Superior Court. This matter is continued to Monday, April 24, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 8 for review regarding status of the case. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.
BALAZS, ET AL. VS. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, ET AL.
CVCV21-0198434
Jan 25, 2023
Shasta County, CA
A Status Conference Statement has been filed indicating Defendants’ Request to Coordinate Add-on Case is currently pending before Judge Cheng in San Francisco Superior Court. This matter is continued to Monday, April 24, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 8 for review regarding status of the case. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.
BALAZS, ET AL. VS. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, ET AL.
CVCV21-0198434
Jan 21, 2023
Shasta County, CA
A Status Conference Statement has been filed indicating Defendants’ Request to Coordinate Add-on Case is currently pending before Judge Cheng in San Francisco Superior Court. This matter is continued to Monday, April 24, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 8 for review regarding status of the case. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.
BALAZS, ET AL. VS. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, ET AL.
CVCV21-0198434
Jan 23, 2023
Shasta County, CA
A Status Conference Statement has been filed indicating Defendants’ Request to Coordinate Add-on Case is currently pending before Judge Cheng in San Francisco Superior Court. This matter is continued to Monday, April 24, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 8 for review regarding status of the case. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.
BALAZS, ET AL. VS. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, ET AL.
CVCV21-0198434
Jan 27, 2023
Shasta County, CA
Re: In Re: Imidacloprid Cases Superior Court Case No. 22JCCP05241 Hearing Date: November 29, 2023 (Dept. 502) Motion: Eriksson, LLC’s Petition to Coordinate Add-on Case Nutrien Ag Solution, Inc.’s Petition for Coordination of Add-On Case **If timely requested; oral argument will be heard on Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 3:30pm in Department 502** Tentative Ruling: To grant both petitions.
['22JCCP05241', '20CECG00766, to the coordinated proceedings. There is no', '23CECG03129, RJN Exh. I.)']
Nov 29, 2023
Fresno County, CA
Below is the tentative ruling for the hearing on Thursday, July 12, 2018. No appearance is required under the following conditions: The Case Management Conference-Complex scheduled on July 12, 2018 is continued to July 18, 2019 at 9:00 a.m., in Department 35. Counsel is directed to notify the Court if the Petition to Coordinate Add-On Case is denied.
BRANDI N TACKETT VS. BAYER CORP
34-2017-00218790-CU-PL-GDS
Jul 09, 2018
Sacramento County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Products Liability
Below is the tentative ruling for the hearing on Thursday, July 12, 2018. No appearance is required under the following conditions: The Case Management Conference-Complex scheduled on July 12, 2018 is continued to July 18, 2019 at 9:00 a.m., in Department 35. Counsel is directed to notify the Court if the Petition to Coordinate Add-On Case is denied.
AMBER BAILEY VS. BAYER CORP., AN INDIANA CORPORATION
34-2016-00201800-CU-MT-GDS
Jul 09, 2018
Sacramento County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Products Liability
Below is the tentative ruling for the hearing on Thursday, July 12, 2018. No appearance is required under the following conditions: The Case Management Conference-Complex scheduled on July 12, 2018 is continued to July 18, 2019 at 9:00 a.m., in Department 35. Counsel is directed to notify the Court if the Petition to Coordinate Add-On Case is denied.
EBONY ALEXANDER VS. BAYER CORP AN INDIANA CORPORATION
34-2016-00200790-CU-MT-GDS
Jul 09, 2018
Sacramento County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Products Liability
Below is the tentative ruling for the hearing on March 23, 2017. No appearance is required under the following conditions: Because of the stay pending the ruling on the Petition to Coordinate Add-On Case, the Case Management Conference is continued to July 27, 2017 at 9:30 a.m., in Department 35.
ELIZA ARAGON VS. BAYER CORP AN INDIANA CORPORATION
34-2016-00204038-CU-MT-GDS
Mar 14, 2017
Sacramento County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Products Liability
Below is the tentative ruling for the hearing on March 23, 2017. No appearance is required under the following conditions: Because of the stay pending the ruling on the Petition to Coordinate Add-On Case, the Case Management Conference is continued to July 27, 2017 at 9:30 a.m., in Department 35.
CHRISTIE DIGGS VS. BAYER CORP
34-2016-00200796-CU-MT-GDS
Mar 14, 2017
Sacramento County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Products Liability
Below is the tentative ruling for the hearing on Thursday, July 12, 2018. No appearance is required under the following conditions: The Case Management Conference-Complex scheduled on July 12, 2018 is continued to July 18, 2019 at 9:00 a.m., in Department 35. Counsel is directed to notify the Court if the Petition to Coordinate Add-On Case is denied.
JENNIFER SPRADLIN VS. BAYER CORP
34-2017-00223553-CU-PL-GDS
Jul 09, 2018
Sacramento County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Products Liability
Below is the tentative ruling for the hearing on Thursday, July 12, 2018. No appearance is required under the following conditions: The Case Management Conference-Complex scheduled on July 12, 2018 is continued to July 18, 2019 at 9:00 a.m., in Department 35. Counsel is directed to notify the Court if the Petition to Coordinate Add-On Case is denied.
TANYA M LOWE VS. BAYER CORP AN INDIANA CORPORATION
34-2017-00219102-CU-PL-GDS
Jul 09, 2018
Sacramento County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Products Liability
Below is the tentative ruling for the hearing on Thursday, July 12, 2018. No appearance is required under the following conditions: The Case Management Conference-Complex scheduled on July 12, 2018 is continued to July 18, 2019 at 9:00 a.m., in Department 35. Counsel is directed to notify the Court if the Petition to Coordinate Add-On Case is denied.
SHELIA SARAY HAMILTON VS. BAYER CORP
34-2017-00218739-CU-PL-GDS
Jul 09, 2018
Sacramento County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Products Liability
Below is the tentative ruling for the hearing on Thursday, July 12, 2018. No appearance is required under the following conditions: The Case Management Conference-Complex scheduled on July 12, 2018 is continued to July 18, 2019 at 9:00 a.m., in Department 35. Counsel is directed to notify the Court if the Petition to Coordinate Add-On Case is denied.
MICHELLE YVONNE MARTINEZ VS. BAYER CORP., AN INDIANA CORPORATION
34-2017-00216470-CU-PL-GDS
Jul 09, 2018
Sacramento County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Products Liability
To add new causes of action, plaintiff must file a motion for leave to amend under CCP Section 473(a). Counsel are to meet and confer before filing a demurrer to the first amended complaint or a motion for leave to amend. If both are filed, counsel are to coordinate so that the hearing on each is set for the same date.
WILLIAMS V. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., ET AL.
FCS052042
Aug 27, 2019
Solano County, CA
No appearance required The Court is in receipt of plaintiff's case management statement filed May 25, 2021. A stipulation to coordinate was granted by the Hon. Winifred Smith, for the County of Alameda, granting the Petition for Coordination of Add-on Case and stay of cases. The plaintiff's request the Sacramento case 34-2020-00278948 remains stayed and the case management conference hearing of June 4, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. is continued to February 22, 2022 at 9:30 a.m. in department 41 is GRANTED.
LYNETTE GOMES VS. BAYER CORP., AN INDIANA CORPORATION
34-2020-00278948-CU-PL-GDS
Jun 02, 2021
Sacramento County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Products Liability
See Ford Motor Warranty Cases (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 626 (holding that the refusal to add substantively indistinguishable cases amounted to an improper repudiation of the motion judge’s decision to coordinate the cases, and that the cases were properly coordinated due to significant common pretrial issues). The Court subsequently granted the add-on petition on October 4, 2017. Ford has filed a second, and a third, add-on petition.
FORD MOTOR WARRANTY CASES
JCCP4856
Jan 16, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
The file reflects that on July 23 and 27, 2020, Plaintiff filed duplicate notices of Petition to Coordinate Add-On case. The notice identifies the underlying action, the Robledo suit and the Flores suit and requests an immediate stay. Defendant Randstad filed an opposition to the request for stay on August 6, 2020. The court is unaware of any ruling on the pending application or the scheduling of a hearing on the petition.
APODACA V. RANDSTAD US LLC, ET AL.
FCS053587
Aug 14, 2020
Solano County, CA
CASE TITLE: Re: Pacifica SL Wage and Hour Cases CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited CASE TYPE: Other employment EVENT TYPE: Court's Motion (CCM) APPEARANCES There being no opposition to the petitions to coordinate the add-on of cases and applications for stay, the Court grants the following petitions: Bowen v.
JCCP5099
May 16, 2022
Ventura County, CA
On 06/01/18, defendant submitted a Petition for Coordination of Add-On Cases (Fourth Add-On Case Set) which “seeks to add the Coppola Action to the other JCCP Actions because they involve common questions of fact and law, such that coordination before one judge will promote judicial economy and eliminate the potential for conflicting rulings by different courts.” (See Notice of Motion at p. 2:17-20; Motion, p. 7:20-22.)
PAUL COPPOLA VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY
BC689925
Jul 24, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Coordination Proceeding No. 5121 submitted an “Amended Notice of Petition and Petition for Coordination of Add-On Case (CCP § 404.4), Request for Stay Pending Coordination (CCP § 404.5 & CRC 3.515), and Request for Appointment as Interim Lead Counsel” (“Amended Petition”) to the coordination trial judge to coordinate this instant case and petitioned for an order for an immediate stay of this instant case while the petition is under consideration.
GUSTAVO ALVAREZ VS BURRTEC WASTE INDUSTRIES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
21PSCV00260
Sep 30, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
TENTATIVE: Statement of Decision on Coordination Petition The court has reviewed the moving, opposition and reply papers (and considered the argument of counsel) and DENIES the petition to coordinate for the reasons stated herein. Background. Both sides adequately state the background for the existing JCCP case which arose in 2010 and continues to the present. The case has gone through the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCE CASES
STK-CV-UED-2010-0006719
Dec 20, 2021
San Joaquin County, CA
However, there are no separate exhibits attached which demonstrate that the potential add-on cases satisfy all of the factors set forth above under the Rules of Court and §404.1 As such, the Court denies the petition for coordination as to the potential add-on cases, without prejudice to resubmitting the add-on petition and accompanying exhibits addressing the requirements of the Rules of Court and CCP §404.1.
WOOLSEY FIRE CASES
JCCP5000
Feb 05, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
On December 12, 2022, Defendants filed a Motion to Coordinate Actions. On December 20, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Consolidate to be heard on March 2, 2023. Trial is current scheduled for June 23, 2023. PARTYS REQUESTS Defendants request the Court coordinate this case with Case No. 30-2019-01118574-CU-MM-CJC, entitled Gary Isaacson v.
GARRY ISAACSON VS SEAN LEONI, M.D., ET AL.
19STCV45059
Mar 02, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Rather, Ford's petition to coordinate actions references the benefits of minimizing the discovery burden, reducing the impact on the court's calendar, efficiently utilizing judicial resources, avoiding inconsistent rulings, and encouraging settlement. (Fords' RJN, Ex. L, p. 1.)
FORD MOTOR TRANSMISSION CASES
JCCP 4924
Mar 03, 2021
Sacramento County, CA
Other
Intellectual Property
(San Luis Obispo County Superior Court case 17CV-0215); Wilson v. Landry’s Restaurant Inc. (San Diego County Superior Court case 37-2017-00009224-CU-OE-CTL) On May 10, 2017 Defendant Landry’s Restaurant Inc. filed a motion to transfer and coordinate with Los Angeles Superior Court case BC654429, Showe v. Landry’s Restaurant Inc., (filed March 15, 2017 and assigned to Judge Michael J. Raphael in Department 51 of the Stanley Mosk courthouse) the following 12 cases.
ZULQARNAIN SHOWE VS LANDRYS RESTAURANT INC
BC654429
Jun 15, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Case Number: BC703537 Hearing Date: February 10, 2023 Dept: 39 Felix Lopez, et al. v. Kathleen Williams McBride Case No. BC703537 Motion to Coordinate Trial Third-party Hector Canino Jr. filed a motion to coordinate trial, asking the Court to issue an order coordinating the trials of the action and the cross-action in the above-captioned matter. The motion is denied for two reasons. First, there was improper notice for this motion.
FELIX LOPEZ ET AL VS KATHLEEN WILLIAMS MCBRIDE
BC703537
Feb 10, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
This case has been assigned to Department 47 for hearing. In the event that either party requests a hearing the matter will be heard at 9:30 a.m. in Department 47. Any party requesting an oral argument must contact the clerk at (916) 874-5487 and opposing counsel or parties in pro per by 4:00 p.m. on the day before the hearing. Parties requesting a court reporter should contact the courtroom clerk at the number stated above.
TRACY MATTHEWS VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION
34-2015-00187000-CU-BC-GDS
Mar 09, 2016
Sacramento County, CA
Contract
Breach
This case has been assigned to Department 47 for hearing. In the event that either party requests a hearing the matter will be heard at 9:30 a.m. in Department 47. Any party requesting an oral argument must contact the clerk at (916) 874-5487 and opposing counsel or parties in pro per by 4:00 p.m. on the day before the hearing. Parties requesting a court reporter should contact the courtroom clerk at the number stated above.
DAVID B. PICTON VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, A DELWARE CORPORATION
34-2015-00184857-CU-BC-GDS
Mar 02, 2016
Sacramento County, CA
Contract
Breach
Case No.: 20SMCV00492 Hearing Date: August 4, 2023 [ TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF S MOTION TO TRANSFER AND COORDINATE ACTIONS MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Edgar A.
EDGAR A MEINHARDT VS SUNNY ACRE LLC, ET AL.
20SMCV00492
Aug 04, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Motion to Coordinate Related Actions for Discovery Purposes Only 3. Case Management Conference An exparte motion to continue the motion to coordinate for discovery purposes only came before the Court on 8/8/21 and was Granted. The matter was continued to 10/29/21. For purposes of efficiency the Court also continued the Demurrer and the status conference to that same date. Plaintiff in the exparte to give notice of all above to all in both cases.
HOERNER VS. HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN
30-2021-01178333
Aug 13, 2021
Orange County, CA
Plaintiff is directed to separately file the SSC with the Court and promptly effect service of the SSC on Defendants. "The plaintiff and defendant, respectively, may be allowed, on motion, to make a supplemental complaint or answer, alleging facts material to the case occurring after the former complaint or answer." Code Civ. Proc. 464. As this Motion seeks to add a new cause of action, a section 464 Motion for leave to supplement a pleading is not appropriate. See Flood v. Simpson (1975) 45 Cal.
SILLMAN VS REYNOLDS
37-2021-00021625-CU-BT-CTL
May 25, 2023
San Diego County, CA
Nature of Proceedings: Petition for Coordination of Add-On Case Defendants’ petition for coordination of add-on case is denied. The court’s June 1, 2009 stay order is lifted. Code of Civil Procedure Section 404.4 allows the judge presiding over coordinated actions to coordinate add-on cases pending in different courts if the factors set forth in Code of Civil Procedure 404.1 are satisfied.
ALFONSO GUZMAN, ET AL. V. CKE RESTAURANTS, INC.,
CORD 4537
Jun 23, 2009
Santa Barbara County, CA
Defendants’ Motion to Transfer and Consolidate Actions, filed on 7/21/16 is TAKEN OFF CALENDAR. Defendant moves to coordinate the cases under Civ Procedure section 404.1, on grounds both cases involve common questions of law and fact. Coordination applies where a party seeks to coordinate cases pending in different courts. Code Civ. Proc., § 404. Motions for Coordination of non-complex cases are heard in Department 1 pursuant to Los Angeles Super Ct Rule 3.3(h).
EVA LORRAINE HICKOK VS TAFT ELECTRIC COMPANY ET AL
BC616716
Aug 18, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
This case involves the construction of a movie theater in Playa Vista. According to plaintiff Moorefield – the general contractor on the project – the flooring subcontractor National Flooring overbilled for the work performed and failed/refused to cooperate with plaintiff’s audit request.
MOOREFIELD CONSTRUCTION, INC. V. NATIONAL FLOORING SYSTEMS, INC.
30-2018-01004470-CU-BC-CJC
Dec 05, 2019
Orange County, CA
That is the case here.” Ford Motor Warranty Cases at 646-646. Substantively, when viewed through the prism of the Court of Appeal opinion, the criteria for coordination under CCP §404.1 are satisfied as to both add-on petitions. These cases all deal with defects in the transmissions of the identified model-year Ford Fiesta and Ford Focus vehicles. While the defects are not identical, they need not be in order to coordinate.
FORD MOTOR WARRANTY CASES
JCCP4856
Nov 05, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Younger, II’s complaint is CONTINUED on the Court’s own motion to Thursday, March 9, 2017, at 9:00 a.m. in Department Seven, so that Ms. Putman’s motion to transfer and coordinate actions, filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, may be heard on February 24, 2017. (Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice, Exh. 5, Case no. BP172365.)
YOUNGER V. PUTNAM
CVCV16-1074
Jan 25, 2017
Yolo County, CA
CASE NO: BC640044 [TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COORDINATE WITHOUT PREJUDICE Dept. 3 1:30 p.m. February 1, 2019 Plaintiffs seek to transfer to L.A. County and coordinate with this case an action pending in Kern pursuant to CRC 3.500.
JOHN ARVIZU ET AL VS PABLO CORONADO ET AL
BC640044
Feb 01, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
The court is currently inclined to GRANT the petition to coordinate in light of the Attorney General's comments. If the court grants the petition to coordinate, then the court will be inclined to stay all the included actions identified in the petition and to also stay the related Alameda County actions identified in the order setting the hearing on the petition to coordinate.
CENTER FOR ENVIROMENTAL HEALTH VS TOMMY BAHAMA GROUP, INC.
RG19034870
Oct 05, 2021
Alameda County, CA
Notice Of Motion To Coordinate And Consolidate Actions Set for hearing on Tuesday, April 27, 2010, line 7, PLAINTIFF IL FORNAIO AMERICA CORPORATION Motion to Coordinate and Consolidate Actions. Off Calendar, Motion to be re-noticed in Department 206 per CCP section 404. =(302/AJR)
IL FORNAIO AMERICA CORPORATION A DELAWARE VS. FERRADO GARDENT COURT, LLC A DELAWARE LIMITED ET AL
CGC09491798
Apr 27, 2010
San Francisco County, CA
(Joint) Notice Of Motion And Motion To Transfe And Coordinate Set for hearing on Monday, December 5, 2011, Line 6, CROSS COMPLAINANTs VERNON LOUCKS, CHARLES LOUCKS' (Joint) Notice Of Motion And Motion To Transfer And Coordinate. Off calendar per Notice of Withdrawal filed December 1, 2011. = (302/HEK)
INFAC MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, VS. COMDISCO INVESTMENT GROUP, INC. ET AL
CGC10501014
Dec 05, 2011
San Francisco County, CA
Comptons case, the other six cases, and (likely) the many anticipated add-on cases are complex because they involve or are apt to involve the same mass fire, common issues, numerous parties and witnesses, and similar discovery. II.
JCCP5266
Feb 16, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendants make an attendant request to stay this action pending the outcome of Craven or, at a minimum, until a determination if made concerning whether or not to coordinate this case with Craven. Defendants correctly note the Court has broad discretion in determining whether or not to impose a stay. Defendants, in their demurrer, indicate there is a hearing on calendar on 5/14/21 to coordinate Craven with Zymberi.
DIJANA GARRETT VS APRO, LLC, ET AL.
21LBCV00005
Jul 22, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendants make an attendant request to stay this action pending the outcome of Craven or, at a minimum, until a determination if made concerning whether or not to coordinate this case with Craven. Defendants correctly note the Court has broad discretion in determining whether or not to impose a stay. Defendants, in their demurrer, indicate there is a hearing on calendar on 5/14/21 to coordinate Craven with Zymberi.
DIJANA GARRETT VS APRO, LLC, ET AL.
21LBCV00005
Sep 14, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
On 7/14/21, Plaintiff filed this action for: (1) Specific Performance, (2) Breach of Contract, (3) Quiet Title and (4) Declaratory Relief. On 8/10/21, Defendant William J. Schrey filed an unlawful detainer action against Plaintiff and Cameron Orozco for the same property. On 8/30/21, this Court deemed the instant case and the unlawful detainer case related.
JUAN OROZCO VS WILLIAM J, TRUSTEE OF THE SCHREY TRUST DATED JUNE 12, 2018 SCHREY, ET AL.
21CHCV00517
Nov 12, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
On 7/14/21, Plaintiff filed this action for: (1) Specific Performance, (2) Breach of Contract, (3) Quiet Title and (4) Declaratory Relief. On 8/10/21, Defendant William J. Schrey filed an unlawful detainer action against Plaintiff and Cameron Orozco for the same property. On 8/30/21, this Court deemed the instant case and the unlawful detainer case related.
JUAN OROZCO VS WILLIAM J, TRUSTEE OF THE SCHREY TRUST DATED JUNE 12, 2018 SCHREY, ET AL.
21CHCV00517
Nov 12, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Counsels in each case are ordered to coordinate discovery. Counsel for Samantha B. is ordered to serve a copy of this order on all counsel in this case and the case of Danielle W. v Aurora Vista Del Mar (15-00471717.)
SAMANTHA B VS. AURORA VISTA DEL MAR HOSPITAL LLC
56-2015-00464635-CU-PO-VTA
Oct 20, 2015
Ventura County, CA
Here, based on the record before the Court, there is no indication that the petition is pending or that the action is or will be stayed. Additionally, Plaintiff's jury duty is one week prior to the trial and thus does not clearly conflict with the February 16 trial date. The Court notes that although Plaintiff was granted a continuance in another case based on Plaintiff's asserted conflict with jury duty, that motion, unlike the instant motion, was unopposed.
CHRISTINA J GONZALEZ VS. TODD WILLIAM JOHNSON
34-2011-00107430-CU-FR-GDS
Feb 04, 2016
Sacramento County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
On April 19, 2023, Defendants filed a motion to consolidate this case with Los Angeles Superior Court case number 22TRCV00996 (Audrey Gayl Peters vs. Stacia Elizabeth Trimmer). The Court denied the request because the cases were pending in different departments and had not been deemed related cases. (Local Rule 3.3(g).) On August 2, 2023, Defendants filed a motion to coordinate this case with Los Angeles Superior Court case number 22TRCV00996 (Audrey Gayl Peters vs.
AUDREY PETERS VS CAMERON DAVID ARTHUR HERBER, ET AL.
22STCV11897
Oct 02, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Additionally, the plaintiffs shall coordinate all discovery demanded from defendants. All papers shall be filed in Case No. CV20177006 and shall cross-reference all other consolidated actions by this order. All case management conferences in Case No. 20181893 are dropped. All parties are to proceed with the judicial arbitration currently set to be heard by Michael Norton as set in CV20177006.
DELILAH WARREN ET AL. VS CARLA VALDEZ ET AL.
STK-CV-UAT-2017-0007006
Aug 28, 2018
San Joaquin County, CA
Case No.: 18BBCV00148 Hearing Date: May 17, 2019 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motion to transfer and coordinate actions BACKGROUND In this action, Plaintiff WBN Home Design, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) alleges that on July 7, 2018, it entered into a written contract with Defendant Harlene Rottenberg (“Defendant”), but that Defendant breached the agreement on July 17, 2018 by failing to pay Plaintiff for services rendered in the amount of $29,710.10.
WBN HOME DESIGN, INC. VS HARLENE ROTTENBERG
18BBCV00148
May 17, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
In the Orange County case, Defendant Kyle Crisanti answered the Complaint on 6/13/17. He elected not to file a Cross-Complaint for Indemnity against the other drivers. On 7/28/17, Defendant Kyle Crisanti filed a Case Management Statement, but did not address the potential for other litigation. On 8/7/17, the CMC was held and the court set the trial for 4/2/18. Pursuant to stipulation of counsel, the court continued this case from 4/2/18 to 6/25/18. The Los Angeles case, Rodriguez v.
BOTROS VS. CRISANTI
30-2017-00917942-CU-PA-CJC
May 07, 2018
Orange County, CA
Wickers to Release Attorneys Eyes Only Case Files to Defendants for Use During Case Proceedings The court considered the moving and opposition papers. RULING The motion is GRANTED in part. The court orders that defendants and plaintiffs counsel coordinate a mutual date and time to view the documents at the courthouse and to coordinate with the clerk as to an available location.
IN THE MATTER OF: IVAN OGNEV
22TRCP00333
Nov 02, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Nature of Proceedings: Petition Stay/Coordinate Class Action This is a Petition to Stay or Coordinate Ruling: As set forth in the Stipulation, defendant withdraws its request to stay and requests that the Hernandez Action be coordinated as part of the Coordinated Action.
CARL KARCHER WAGE AND HOUR CASES
CORD4537
Feb 15, 2011
Santa Barbara County, CA
On July 13, 2022, Farmers filed a Motion to Transfer and Coordinate seeking to transfer case CIV-SB-2200940 from San Bernardino Superior Court to Los Angeles Superior Court for coordination with case 20STCV17320. On July 22, 2022, Judge Beaudet found case 20STCV17320 is not related to case CIV-SB-2200940.
DONYA ENTERTAINMENT, INC. VS FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE
20STCV17320
Sep 29, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
In opposition, defendant asserts that the court should abstain from ruling on the motion pending outcome of defendant’s motion to consolidate the instant action with two related civil actions, including a designated complex case. It is asserted that the actions allege the same claims and seek the same damages. Defendant contends that plaintiff seeks to add claims in the instant action that are the subject of two other lawsuits.
SOUTH BAY PIPING INDUSTRY LABOR MANAGEMENT TRUST V. PACIFIC PLUMBING &
19CV344620
May 13, 2021
Santa Clara County, CA
This court spoke with Clark County Hearing Master Tom Kurtz on December 1, 2015 to coordinate proceedings. Hearing Master Kurtz was both knowledgeable and helpful. The two judges concurred that the best way to coordinate proceedings was to have this court grant a temporary guardianship, then to direct the California temporary guardian to take action in Clark County to terminate that proceeding.
IN THE MATTER OF TANISHA J. HUNTER
56-2015-00470191-PR-GP-OXN
Dec 08, 2015
Ventura County, CA
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS Set for hearing on Monday, November 30, 2009, line 4, DEFENDANTS WEST BAY BUILDERS, INC, SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS OF CASE(S) CGC-09-484299, CGC-09-489223, CGC-09-490551 WITH CASE CGC-08-477790. Motion to consolidate granted. Court orders consolidation for trial only. Parties to coordinate discovery and seek single assignment from Department 206. Lead case number for trial is 477790. =(302/CWW)
TOM'S METAL SPECIALISTS, INC VS. WEST BAY BUILDERS, INC ET AL
CGC08477790
Nov 30, 2009
San Francisco County, CA
Petition to Coordinate was granted. Case needs to be transferred to Los Angeles Superior Court/Judge Highberger.
CHRISTINA CHAVIRA VS. RESTORATION HARDWARE INC
56-2013-00437457-CU-OE-VTA
Dec 31, 2014
Miles Lang
Ventura County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
Motion To Consolidate (With Case No. 324039) ; P/A; Declaration DENY MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE BUT ORDER PARTIES TO COORDINATE DISCOVERY BEFORE COMMISSIONER SO DUPLICATE DISCOVERY IS NOT CONDUCTED. (PB)
CASTILLO VS CCSF
CGC01323188
May 02, 2002
San Francisco County, CA
Before the Court this day is a motion to “coordinate” the two cases, but since one of those case rests in another county, this is really a motion to transfer, coordinate and then consolidate for all purposes. Consolidation.
ARREDONDO VS TUCO TRUCKING, INC.
30-2015-00813339-CU-PA-CJC
Dec 16, 2016
Orange County, CA
Petition to Coordinate instant case with cases pending in LASC is still under submission to the Judicial Council. Continue CMC/OSC to 11/07/14 at 8:15 a.m. in Courtroom 22B.
CHRISTINA CHAVIRA VS. RESTORATION HARDWARE INC
56-2013-00437457-CU-OE-VTA
Sep 08, 2014
Miles Lang
Ventura County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
See 3/23/18 order, describing the the hearing as "Case Management Conference Hearing – Complex Case". Even assuming that such actions taken by the Orange County and Riverside County courts are not binding on this Court, these actions would fall under the definition of a "complex case". CRC § 3.400.
CALIFORNIA STATE PARKS FOUNDATION VS. FOOTHILL/EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCY
37-2013-00049797-CU-WM-NC
May 10, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Administrative
Writ
See 3/23/18 order, describing the hearing as "Case Management Conference Hearing – Complex Case". Even assuming that such actions taken by the Orange County and Riverside County courts are not binding on this Court, these actions would fall under the definition of a "complex case". CRC § 3.400.
CALIFORNIA STATE PARKS FOUNDATION, ENDANGERED HABITATS LEAGUE VS FOOTHILL/EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCY, A JOINT POWERS AGENCY
GIN051194
May 10, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Defendants indicated that the class action lawsuit was dismissed on March 2, 2022 but noted that Rosss other case (San Bernardino Superior Court case CIVSB2134685) is at issue in the proposed petition for coordination. However, Defendants did not argue that the cases should be included in the petition for coordination and have not requested permission to file a petition to coordinate those cases with the Linsangan case. The Court therefore did not consider this argument further.
ROD LINSANGAN VS GARDAWORLD, ET AL.
21STCV09227
May 19, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Ntc Of Mtn For Permission To Coordinate Attachments Set for hearing on Thursday, May 2, 2013, Line 12, DEFENDANT MICHAEL OCHOA's Motion For Permission To Coordinate Attachments. Denied without prejudice. If Plaintiff is seeking to submit a petition for coordination to the chair of the judicial council, this motion must be filed in Department 206. If Plaintiff is seeking to consolidate cases 522119 and 526521 pursuant to CCP 1048, his moving papers have failed to show good cause for consolidation.
EGC FINANCIAL, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS. MICHAEL OCHOA ET AL
CGC12522119
May 02, 2013
San Francisco County, CA
In this case, however, the breach of contract issue goes far beyond that. MCCD lays out in great detail a wide range of activities that MWDL agreed to undertake, e.g., “coordinate all engineering disciplines,” in order to develop “a complete, comprehensive and workable design[.]” (Section 2.3.1.) MWDL must “[m]ake recommendations on required additional information necessary to complete the design and complete the preliminary reports and schematic materials.” (Section 4.4.2.) The list goes on.
MARIN COMMUNITY COLLEGE VS. MARCY WONG
MSC16-00857
Dec 18, 2017
Ed Weil
Contra Costa County, CA
Formal consolidation would mean combining a trust case with a decedent’s estate case, which is disfavored. However, the court can and will work informally to coordinate the proceedings so that the pending matters can be tried together.
GRUEBL – TRUST
30-2015-00809282
Sep 12, 2016
Orange County, CA
Case is currently set for Order to Show Cause for Dismissal re Failure to Proceed on 02/03/2014 at 8:15 a.m. in Courtroom 22B. Hearing is advanced and reset to 12/30/2013 at 8:15 a.m. in Courtroom 22B in order to coordinate this case with 56-2010-00386108-CU-PT-SIM [In re Mekanna Berkhout, A Minor], which is already set for hearing on 12/30/2013 in Courtroom 22B.
IN RE THE MATTER OF KYLE BERKHOUT, A MINOR
56-2010-00386100-CU-PT-SIM
Dec 30, 2013
Miles Lang
Ventura County, CA
Motion to Transfer and to Coordinate Cases Grant. Beneficiary Cynthia Lazzaro seeks an order transferring to this court a related case (Case No. 16-829855) involving a claimed interest by the Trust in Ms. Lazzaro’s property. The Motion to Transfer and Coordinate Actions is granted. The Partition Action (Case No. 30-2016-0000829855-CU-OR-CJC) is removed from the inventory of the Honorable Peter Wilson Dept and is transferred to Probate Court for all purposes.
WEBSTER - TRUST
30-2015-00816628
Aug 22, 2016
Orange County, CA
Petitioner must file a motion to vacate and set aside the dismissal, preferably to be set for hearing on the same day as the instant motion. Petitioner is directed to coordinate the motions with this Courts staff.
BLUE HILL SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY VS KIAN RAD
22STCP01566
Jun 12, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
In the immediate case, unlike in Poeschl, it does not appear that either side has been “playing games” or has sought any sort of tactical advantage from the timing of the depositions.
JOAN BARTO VS CATHEDRAL OAKS ATHLETIC CLUB ET AL
1264903
May 19, 2009
Santa Barbara County, CA
By way of the Motion, Defendants seek to consolidate or coordinate this matter with a matter pending or apparently recently disposed of in Alameda County Superior Court case number: RG17886941. (See Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice, attached as “Exhibit B” (Order Sustaining Demurrer Without Leave to Amend).) For the reasons stated below, the Motion is denied. I.
SMITH VS. SMITH
MSC15-00305
Aug 29, 2018
Contra Costa County, CA
("Boise Bathtub") to quash service of the Summons and Complaint on Boise Bathtub. No further briefing is permitted on the subject of the Motion to transfer and coordinate related cases.
DAVIS VS KNUDSON
37-2020-00032097-CU-BT-CTL
Dec 03, 2020
San Diego County, CA
Business
Intellectual Property
DEFENDANT IS ORDERED TO COORDINATE INSPECTION AND PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSE TO DISCOVERY WITHIN 45 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING. PLAINTIFF TO NOTICE. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing. The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.
JANE DOE VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, A PUBLIC ENTITY
21STCV44756
Apr 12, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendant moves to strike the FAC on the same grounds. Plaintiff asserts it has capacity to sue on the grounds that it is a valid LLC authorized to do business. It contends it was not required to have a contractor’s license and that should not be decided on demurrer. It contends that the definition of contractor is specific to construct, alter, repair, add to, subtract from, improve, move, wreck or demolish, or any part thereof.
G&V GREENHOUSE SOLUTIONS LLC, AN INDIANA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS MILES CONSTRUCTION, A NEVADA CORPORATION
CVPS2204421
May 03, 2023
Riverside County, CA
The parties in their Case Management Statements represent that they have agreed to coordinate this case with Lewis v. Express Messenger Systems, Inc., et al., LASC Case, JCCP No. 4789, and request a 60-day continuance of the CMC. Notice to be provided by the Judicial Assistant.
BYRON MONTENEGRO VS. EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS INC
56-2015-00470321-CU-OE-VTA
Dec 28, 2015
Ventura County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
Notice Of Hearing On Petition To Compel Arbitration Set for hearing on the Law and Motion Calendar for Wednesday, December 6, 2017, line 4. PETITIONERS EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS, INC., SUBCONTRACTING CONCEPTS (CT) LLC'S Petition To Compel Arbitration. Petitioner Express Messenger Systems, Inc.'s petition to compel arbitration is off calendar. Per order dated November 2, 2017, Judge Freeman of the Los Angeles Superior Court stayed this case pending determination of the petition to coordinate.
IN RE: EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS, INC. ET AL
CPF17515897
Dec 06, 2017
San Francisco County, CA
Notice Of Hearing On Petition To Compel Arbitration Set for hearing on the Law and Motion Calendar for Wednesday, December 6, 2017, line 3. PETITIONERS EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS, INC., SUBCONTRACTING CONCEPTS (CT) LLC'S Petition To Compel Arbitration. Petitioner Express Messenger Systems, Inc.'s petition to compel arbitration is off calendar. Per order dated November 2, 2017, Judge Freeman of the Los Angeles Superior Court stayed this case pending determination of the petition to coordinate.
IN RE: EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS, INC. ET AL
CPF17515896
Dec 06, 2017
San Francisco County, CA
Notice Of Hearing On Petition To Compel Arbitration Set for hearing on the Law and Motion Calendar for Wednesday, December 6, 2017, line 2. PETITIONERS EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS, INC., SUBCONTRACTING CONCEPTS (CT) LLC'S Petition To Compel Arbitration. Petitioner Express Messenger Systems, Inc.'s petition to compel arbitration is off calendar. Per order dated November 2, 2017, Judge Freeman of the Los Angeles Superior Court stayed this case pending determination of the petition to coordinate.
IN RE: EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS, INC. ET AL
CPF17515895
Dec 06, 2017
San Francisco County, CA
Notice Of Hearing On Petition To Compel Arbitration Set for hearing on the Law and Motion Calendar for Wednesday, December 6, 2017, line 6. PETITIONERS EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS, INC., SUBCONTRACTING CONCEPTS (CT) LLC's Petition To Compel Arbitration. Petitioner Express Messenger Systems, Inc.'s petition to compel arbitration is off calendar. Per order dated November 2, 2017, Judge Freeman of the Los Angeles Superior Court stayed this case pending determination of the petition to coordinate.
IN RE: EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS, INC. ET AL
CPF17515899
Dec 06, 2017
San Francisco County, CA
Notice Of Hearing On Petition To Compel Arbitration Set for hearing on the Law and Motion Calendar for Wednesday, December 6, 2017, line 1. PETITIONERS EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS, INC., SUBCONTRACTING CONCEPTS (CT) LLC'S Petition To Compel Arbitration. Petitioner Express Messenger Systems, Inc.'s petition to compel arbitration is off calendar. Per order dated November 2, 2017, Judge Freeman of the Los Angeles Superior Court stayed this case pending determination of the petition to coordinate.
IN RE: EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS, INC. ET AL
CPF17515893
Dec 06, 2017
San Francisco County, CA
Notice Of Hearing On Petition To Compel Arbitration Set for hearing on the Law and Motion Calendar for Wednesday, December 6, 2017, line 5. PETITIONERS EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS, INC, SUBCONTRACTING CONCEPTS (CT) LLC'S Petition To Compel Arbitration. Petitioner Express Messenger Systems, Inc.'s petition to compel arbitration is off calendar. Per order dated November 2, 2017, Judge Freeman of the Los Angeles Superior Court stayed this case pending determination of the petition to coordinate.
IN RE: EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS, INC ET AL
CPF17515898
Dec 06, 2017
San Francisco County, CA
The court would like the case number to the civil action, in order to conceivably consolidate that case or at least coordinate that case with this probate matter to achieve a more timely probate estate closing. Status, please. gmr
IN THE MATTER OF JOSE GUADALUPE MORA
56-2015-00464703-PR-LA-OXN
Oct 12, 2016
Ventura County, CA
Plaintiff's motion to transfer venue and consolidate/coordinate this action with her Yuba County action is denied. Plaintiff has failed to make the factual showing required for a change of venue based on inconvenience of the witnesses and furthering the ends of justice. (See, i.e., Flanagan v. Flanagan (1959) 175 Cal. App. 2d 641.)
KIMBELL, JAIME K. VS PATAN, ANWAR ET AL
19CV02561
Dec 30, 2020
Butte County, CA
JCCP 4594 Tentative Ruling for September 24, 2021 Hearing Petition for Coordination and to Add-On Actions Telephonic Hearing – 10:30 a.m., Department 10A Call in: 209-992-5590 – Bridge No.: 6938, Pin No.: 3784 The court would like to hear oral argument on the issues: Service Issues: There appears to be a number of cases in which timely service for this hearing was not shown.
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCE CASES
STK-CV-UED-2010-0006719
Sep 24, 2021
San Joaquin County, CA
MSC20-01336 CASE NAME: ROTH VS. BLACK DIAMOND HEARING ON MOTION TO HAVE REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS DEEMED ADMITTED FILED BY KEVIN ROTH, ERIN ROTH * TENTATIVE RULING: * This motion is denied without prejudice. On March 8, the parties filed a signed stipulation with the court in which the parties agreed that the Court appoint a Special Master.
MSC20-01336
Sep 20, 2021
Contra Costa County, CA
HEARING ON DEMURRER TO 1st Amended COMPLAINT FILED BY CENTER FOR AUTISM AND RELATED DISORDERS, LLC * TENTATIVE RULING: * Defendant CARD demurs to the complaint, seeking abatement. CARD also has petitioned the Judicial Council to coordinate this action with the other PAGA actions pending against it around the state, or, to stay this action. The demurrer is overruled without prejudice. Ruling on the demurrer has the potential to moot the proceedings before the Judicial Council.
NORDE VS. CENTER FOR AUTISM
MSC19-01151
Dec 12, 2019
Contra Costa County, CA
Case No.: 19STCV22935 [TENATATIVE] ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER Dept. 3 1:30 p.m. October 1, 2019 The parties have a hearing scheduled on 10/03/19 in Department 14 of the Spring Street Courthouse to determine whether this action should be coordinated with JCCP 5052. This Court declines to rule on the pending demurrer (scheduled for 10/01/19 in Department 3) unless and until Department 14 declines to coordinate the case.
CONNOR BATHAM VS JUUL LABS, INC., A CORPORATION, ET AL.
19STCV22935
Oct 01, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Products Liability
The parties have, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 403 and California Rules of Court, rule 3.500, stipulated to coordinate this case with Riverside Case No. RIC 1608248, Buddy Corporation v. Preuss. The stipulation was entered into after an ex parte motion to coordinate was denied without prejudice, and a noticed motion was filed indicating that not all the parties had, at least as of that date, stipulated to the transfer.
PREUSS V. SMR SERVICES, LLC
30-2016-00837339-CU-PA-CJC
Apr 26, 2018
Orange County, CA
Renotice Of Pltf'S Motion, Petition To Coordinate Issues That Had Arised From Proceedings In Superior Court Case #413930 Of Common Of Issues Of Facts & Laws To The Pleadings In Superior Court O F F C A L E N D A R, PROOF OF SERVICE DEFECTIVE 1) SIGNED BY PRO PER PLAINTIFF (I.E. PARTY TO THE ACTION). 2) PROOF OF SERVICE IS FOR SUMMONS, COMPLAINT AND SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM, NOT FOR THIS MOTION. (REQ/302/JU)
JAIRUS GAUDARIO VS. MARK RACINES
CGC03421672
Sep 03, 2003
San Francisco County, CA
Continue hearing to May 31, 2018, 9:00 AM, J6, at the request of counsel, to coordinate with an anticipated hearing on petition to confirm settlement. gmr
IN RE THE ELLENSOHN FAMILY TRUST
56-2017-00501333-PR-TR-OXN
Apr 19, 2018
Ventura County, CA
Probate
Trust
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.