Petition to Coordinate Add-On Case in California

What Is a Petition to Coordinate Add-On Case?

“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.)

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 § 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).)

“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.)

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.)

Rulings for Petition to Coordinate Add-On Case in California

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.”

  • Name

    CYPRESS SECURITY WAGE AND HOUR CASES

  • Case No.

    JCCP4963

  • Hearing

    Mar 22, 2018

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.

  • Name

    XARELTO CASES

  • Case No.

    JCCP4862

  • Hearing

    May 16, 2017

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.

  • Name

    CARL KARCHER WAGE AND HOUR CASES

  • Case No.

    CORD4537

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2018

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.

  • Name

    SHANNON HANSEN VS CARL KARCHER ENTERPRISES INC

  • Case No.

    1340452

  • Hearing

    Aug 24, 2010

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.

  • Name

    EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS WAGE AND HOUR CASES

  • Case No.

    JCCP4789

  • Hearing

    Jan 23, 2018

Defendants’ alternative motion to coordinate the Duerst Action as an add-on will be denied.

  • Name

    CARL KARCHER WAGE AND HOUR CASES

  • Case No.

    CORD4537

  • Hearing

    Sep 13, 2011

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.

  • Name

    BALAZS, ET AL. VS. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    CVCV21-0198434

  • Hearing

    Jan 26, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    BALAZS, ET AL. VS. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    CVCV21-0198434

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    BALAZS, ET AL. VS. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    CVCV21-0198434

  • Hearing

    Jan 25, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    BALAZS, ET AL. VS. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    CVCV21-0198434

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    BALAZS, ET AL. VS. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    CVCV21-0198434

  • Hearing

    Jan 23, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    BALAZS, ET AL. VS. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    CVCV21-0198434

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Case No.

    ['22JCCP05241', '20CECG00766, to the coordinated proceedings. There is no', '23CECG03129, RJN Exh. I.)']

  • Hearing

    Nov 29, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    BRANDI N TACKETT VS. BAYER CORP

  • Case No.

    34-2017-00218790-CU-PL-GDS

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2018

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.

  • Name

    AMBER BAILEY VS. BAYER CORP., AN INDIANA CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    34-2016-00201800-CU-MT-GDS

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2018

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.

  • Name

    EBONY ALEXANDER VS. BAYER CORP AN INDIANA CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    34-2016-00200790-CU-MT-GDS

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2018

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.

  • Name

    ELIZA ARAGON VS. BAYER CORP AN INDIANA CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    34-2016-00204038-CU-MT-GDS

  • Hearing

    Mar 14, 2017

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.

  • Name

    CHRISTIE DIGGS VS. BAYER CORP

  • Case No.

    34-2016-00200796-CU-MT-GDS

  • Hearing

    Mar 14, 2017

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.

  • Name

    JENNIFER SPRADLIN VS. BAYER CORP

  • Case No.

    34-2017-00223553-CU-PL-GDS

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2018

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.

  • Name

    TANYA M LOWE VS. BAYER CORP AN INDIANA CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    34-2017-00219102-CU-PL-GDS

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2018

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.

  • Name

    SHELIA SARAY HAMILTON VS. BAYER CORP

  • Case No.

    34-2017-00218739-CU-PL-GDS

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2018

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.

  • Name

    MICHELLE YVONNE MARTINEZ VS. BAYER CORP., AN INDIANA CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    34-2017-00216470-CU-PL-GDS

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2018

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.

  • Name

    WILLIAMS V. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    FCS052042

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2019

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.

  • Name

    LYNETTE GOMES VS. BAYER CORP., AN INDIANA CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    34-2020-00278948-CU-PL-GDS

  • Hearing

    Jun 02, 2021

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.

  • Name

    FORD MOTOR WARRANTY CASES

  • Case No.

    JCCP4856

  • Hearing

    Jan 16, 2018

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.

  • Name

    APODACA V. RANDSTAD US LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    FCS053587

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

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.

  • Case No.

    JCCP5099

  • Hearing

    May 16, 2022

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.)

  • Name

    PAUL COPPOLA VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY

  • Case No.

    BC689925

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2018

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.

  • Name

    GUSTAVO ALVAREZ VS BURRTEC WASTE INDUSTRIES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    21PSCV00260

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2021

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCE CASES

  • Case No.

    STK-CV-UED-2010-0006719

  • Hearing

    Dec 20, 2021

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    WOOLSEY FIRE CASES

  • Case No.

    JCCP5000

  • Hearing

    Feb 05, 2019

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.

  • Name

    GARRY ISAACSON VS SEAN LEONI, M.D., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV45059

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2023

  • County

    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.)

  • Name

    FORD MOTOR TRANSMISSION CASES

  • Case No.

    JCCP 4924

  • Hearing

    Mar 03, 2021

(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.

  • Name

    ZULQARNAIN SHOWE VS LANDRYS RESTAURANT INC

  • Case No.

    BC654429

  • Hearing

    Jun 15, 2017

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.

  • Name

    FELIX LOPEZ ET AL VS KATHLEEN WILLIAMS MCBRIDE

  • Case No.

    BC703537

  • Hearing

    Feb 10, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    TRACY MATTHEWS VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    34-2015-00187000-CU-BC-GDS

  • Hearing

    Mar 09, 2016

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.

  • Name

    DAVID B. PICTON VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, A DELWARE CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    34-2015-00184857-CU-BC-GDS

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2016

Case No.: 20SMCV00492 Hearing Date: August 4, 2023 [ TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF S MOTION TO TRANSFER AND COORDINATE ACTIONS MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Edgar A.

  • Name

    EDGAR A MEINHARDT VS SUNNY ACRE LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20SMCV00492

  • Hearing

    Aug 04, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    HOERNER VS. HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN

  • Case No.

    30-2021-01178333

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2021

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.

  • Name

    SILLMAN VS REYNOLDS

  • Case No.

    37-2021-00021625-CU-BT-CTL

  • Hearing

    May 25, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    ALFONSO GUZMAN, ET AL. V. CKE RESTAURANTS, INC.,

  • Case No.

    CORD 4537

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2009

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).

  • Name

    EVA LORRAINE HICKOK VS TAFT ELECTRIC COMPANY ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC616716

  • Hearing

    Aug 18, 2016

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.

  • Name

    MOOREFIELD CONSTRUCTION, INC. V. NATIONAL FLOORING SYSTEMS, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2018-01004470-CU-BC-CJC

  • Hearing

    Dec 05, 2019

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.

  • Name

    FORD MOTOR WARRANTY CASES

  • Case No.

    JCCP4856

  • Hearing

    Nov 05, 2018

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.)

  • Name

    YOUNGER V. PUTNAM

  • Case No.

    CVCV16-1074

  • Hearing

    Jan 25, 2017

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.

  • Name

    JOHN ARVIZU ET AL VS PABLO CORONADO ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC640044

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2019

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.

  • Name

    CENTER FOR ENVIROMENTAL HEALTH VS TOMMY BAHAMA GROUP, INC.

  • Case No.

    RG19034870

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2021

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)

  • Name

    IL FORNAIO AMERICA CORPORATION A DELAWARE VS. FERRADO GARDENT COURT, LLC A DELAWARE LIMITED ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC09491798

  • Hearing

    Apr 27, 2010

(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)

  • Name

    INFAC MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, VS. COMDISCO INVESTMENT GROUP, INC. ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC10501014

  • Hearing

    Dec 05, 2011

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.

  • Case No.

    JCCP5266

  • Hearing

    Feb 16, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    DIJANA GARRETT VS APRO, LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21LBCV00005

  • Hearing

    Jul 22, 2021

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    DIJANA GARRETT VS APRO, LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21LBCV00005

  • Hearing

    Sep 14, 2021

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    JUAN OROZCO VS WILLIAM J, TRUSTEE OF THE SCHREY TRUST DATED JUNE 12, 2018 SCHREY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21CHCV00517

  • Hearing

    Nov 12, 2021

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    JUAN OROZCO VS WILLIAM J, TRUSTEE OF THE SCHREY TRUST DATED JUNE 12, 2018 SCHREY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21CHCV00517

  • Hearing

    Nov 12, 2021

  • County

    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.)

  • Name

    SAMANTHA B VS. AURORA VISTA DEL MAR HOSPITAL LLC

  • Case No.

    56-2015-00464635-CU-PO-VTA

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2015

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.

  • Name

    CHRISTINA J GONZALEZ VS. TODD WILLIAM JOHNSON

  • Case No.

    34-2011-00107430-CU-FR-GDS

  • Hearing

    Feb 04, 2016

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.

  • Name

    AUDREY PETERS VS CAMERON DAVID ARTHUR HERBER, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV11897

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    DELILAH WARREN ET AL. VS CARLA VALDEZ ET AL.

  • Case No.

    STK-CV-UAT-2017-0007006

  • Hearing

    Aug 28, 2018

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.

  • Name

    WBN HOME DESIGN, INC. VS HARLENE ROTTENBERG

  • Case No.

    18BBCV00148

  • Hearing

    May 17, 2019

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.

  • Name

    BOTROS VS. CRISANTI

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00917942-CU-PA-CJC

  • Hearing

    May 07, 2018

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.

  • Name

    IN THE MATTER OF: IVAN OGNEV

  • Case No.

    22TRCP00333

  • Hearing

    Nov 02, 2022

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    CARL KARCHER WAGE AND HOUR CASES

  • Case No.

    CORD4537

  • Hearing

    Feb 15, 2011

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.

  • Name

    DONYA ENTERTAINMENT, INC. VS FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE

  • Case No.

    20STCV17320

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2022

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    SOUTH BAY PIPING INDUSTRY LABOR MANAGEMENT TRUST V. PACIFIC PLUMBING &

  • Case No.

    19CV344620

  • Hearing

    May 13, 2021

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.

  • Name

    IN THE MATTER OF TANISHA J. HUNTER

  • Case No.

    56-2015-00470191-PR-GP-OXN

  • Hearing

    Dec 08, 2015

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)

  • Name

    TOM'S METAL SPECIALISTS, INC VS. WEST BAY BUILDERS, INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC08477790

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2009

Petition to Coordinate was granted. Case needs to be transferred to Los Angeles Superior Court/Judge Highberger.

  • Name

    CHRISTINA CHAVIRA VS. RESTORATION HARDWARE INC

  • Case No.

    56-2013-00437457-CU-OE-VTA

  • Hearing

    Dec 31, 2014

  • Judge

    Miles Lang

  • County

    Ventura County, CA

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    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)

  • Name

    CASTILLO VS CCSF

  • Case No.

    CGC01323188

  • Hearing

    May 02, 2002

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.

  • Name

    ARREDONDO VS TUCO TRUCKING, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2015-00813339-CU-PA-CJC

  • Hearing

    Dec 16, 2016

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.

  • Name

    CHRISTINA CHAVIRA VS. RESTORATION HARDWARE INC

  • Case No.

    56-2013-00437457-CU-OE-VTA

  • Hearing

    Sep 08, 2014

  • Judge

    Miles Lang

  • County

    Ventura County, CA

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    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.

  • Name

    CALIFORNIA STATE PARKS FOUNDATION VS. FOOTHILL/EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCY

  • Case No.

    37-2013-00049797-CU-WM-NC

  • Hearing

    May 10, 2018

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.

  • Name

    CALIFORNIA STATE PARKS FOUNDATION, ENDANGERED HABITATS LEAGUE VS FOOTHILL/EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCY, A JOINT POWERS AGENCY

  • Case No.

    GIN051194

  • Hearing

    May 10, 2018

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.

  • Name

    ROD LINSANGAN VS GARDAWORLD, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV09227

  • Hearing

    May 19, 2022

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    EGC FINANCIAL, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS. MICHAEL OCHOA ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC12522119

  • Hearing

    May 02, 2013

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.

  • Name

    MARIN COMMUNITY COLLEGE VS. MARCY WONG

  • Case No.

    MSC16-00857

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2017

  • Judge

    Ed Weil

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    GRUEBL – TRUST

  • Case No.

    30-2015-00809282

  • Hearing

    Sep 12, 2016

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.

  • Name

    IN RE THE MATTER OF KYLE BERKHOUT, A MINOR

  • Case No.

    56-2010-00386100-CU-PT-SIM

  • Hearing

    Dec 30, 2013

  • Judge

    Miles Lang

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    WEBSTER - TRUST

  • Case No.

    30-2015-00816628

  • Hearing

    Aug 22, 2016

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.

  • Name

    BLUE HILL SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY VS KIAN RAD

  • Case No.

    22STCP01566

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    JOAN BARTO VS CATHEDRAL OAKS ATHLETIC CLUB ET AL

  • Case No.

    1264903

  • Hearing

    May 19, 2009

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.

  • Name

    SMITH VS. SMITH

  • Case No.

    MSC15-00305

  • Hearing

    Aug 29, 2018

("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.

  • Name

    DAVIS VS KNUDSON

  • Case No.

    37-2020-00032097-CU-BT-CTL

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

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.

  • Name

    JANE DOE VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, A PUBLIC ENTITY

  • Case No.

    21STCV44756

  • Hearing

    Apr 12, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    G&V GREENHOUSE SOLUTIONS LLC, AN INDIANA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS MILES CONSTRUCTION, A NEVADA CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    CVPS2204421

  • Hearing

    May 03, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    BYRON MONTENEGRO VS. EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS INC

  • Case No.

    56-2015-00470321-CU-OE-VTA

  • Hearing

    Dec 28, 2015

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.

  • Name

    IN RE: EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS, INC. ET AL

  • Case No.

    CPF17515897

  • Hearing

    Dec 06, 2017

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.

  • Name

    IN RE: EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS, INC. ET AL

  • Case No.

    CPF17515896

  • Hearing

    Dec 06, 2017

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.

  • Name

    IN RE: EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS, INC. ET AL

  • Case No.

    CPF17515895

  • Hearing

    Dec 06, 2017

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.

  • Name

    IN RE: EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS, INC. ET AL

  • Case No.

    CPF17515899

  • Hearing

    Dec 06, 2017

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.

  • Name

    IN RE: EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS, INC. ET AL

  • Case No.

    CPF17515893

  • Hearing

    Dec 06, 2017

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.

  • Name

    IN RE: EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS, INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    CPF17515898

  • Hearing

    Dec 06, 2017

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

  • Name

    IN THE MATTER OF JOSE GUADALUPE MORA

  • Case No.

    56-2015-00464703-PR-LA-OXN

  • Hearing

    Oct 12, 2016

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.)

  • Name

    KIMBELL, JAIME K. VS PATAN, ANWAR ET AL

  • Case No.

    19CV02561

  • Hearing

    Dec 30, 2020

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.

  • Name

    DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCE CASES

  • Case No.

    STK-CV-UED-2010-0006719

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2021

  • County

    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.

  • Case No.

    MSC20-01336

  • Hearing

    Sep 20, 2021

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    NORDE VS. CENTER FOR AUTISM

  • Case No.

    MSC19-01151

  • Hearing

    Dec 12, 2019

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.

  • Name

    CONNOR BATHAM VS JUUL LABS, INC., A CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV22935

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2019

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.

  • Name

    PREUSS V. SMR SERVICES, LLC

  • Case No.

    30-2016-00837339-CU-PA-CJC

  • Hearing

    Apr 26, 2018

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)

  • Name

    JAIRUS GAUDARIO VS. MARK RACINES

  • Case No.

    CGC03421672

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2003

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

  • Name

    IN RE THE ELLENSOHN FAMILY TRUST

  • Case No.

    56-2017-00501333-PR-TR-OXN

  • Hearing

    Apr 19, 2018

Please wait a moment while we load this page.

New Envelope