Petition to Coordinate Add-On Case in California

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.

In a rare show of agreement in this otherwise sharply disputed litigation, all parties agree that the Duarte and Patel cases should not be coordinated as add-on cases to the instant case. CKE, which initiated the coordination petition, succinctly states its own position: “The Judicial Council framed the Petition as add-on cases to a pending coordinated proceeding despite the fact that CKE’s Petition does not include or discuss a potential add-on request.

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.

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.

Petition to Coordinate Add-On Case (JCCP) (Case No. 25CV028599 Jane Doe AA vs.

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

Petition to Coordinate Add-On Case (JCCP) (25CV025960 Jane AW-85DT Doe vs.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

February 2, 2018 is 120 days from the filing of the Second Amended Add-On Petition. According to Ford, however, the parties agreed that any of the add-on cases in the May 2016 add-on or second add-on case set with trial dates set before January 1, 2018 would be presumptively excluded from this proceeding. Ford says that the Plaintiffs should not be permitted to oppose coordination based on Ford’s compliance with the parties’ agreed-upon and Court-ordered procedures and limitations. The CMO is clear.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

(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.

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.

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.

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.

Petitioner filed a responsive declaration on 06/11/2026. Petitioner requests that (1) the Court adopt the Family Court Services (FCS) recommendations, (2) order a payment plan for child support add-ons, and (3) Deny attorney’s fees and costs. Respondent filed a reply adding on additional costs to her request.

Petitioner filed a responsive declaration on 06/11/2026. Petitioner requests that (1) the Court adopt the Family Court Services (FCS) recommendations, (2) order a payment plan for child support add-ons, and (3) Deny attorney’s fees and costs. Respondent filed a reply adding on additional costs to her request.

Petitioner filed a responsive declaration on 06/11/2026. Petitioner requests that (1) the Court adopt the Family Court Services (FCS) recommendations, (2) order a payment plan for child support add-ons, and (3) Deny attorney’s fees and costs. Respondent filed a reply adding on additional costs to her request.

Petitioner filed a responsive declaration on 06/11/2026. Petitioner requests that (1) the Court adopt the Family Court Services (FCS) recommendations, (2) order a payment plan for child support add-ons, and (3) Deny attorney’s fees and costs. Respondent filed a reply adding on additional costs to her request.

Petitioner filed a responsive declaration on 06/11/2026. Petitioner requests that (1) the Court adopt the Family Court Services (FCS) recommendations, (2) order a payment plan for child support add-ons, and (3) Deny attorney’s fees and costs. Respondent filed a reply adding on additional costs to her request.

Petitioner filed a responsive declaration on 06/11/2026. Petitioner requests that (1) the Court adopt the Family Court Services (FCS) recommendations, (2) order a payment plan for child support add-ons, and (3) Deny attorney’s fees and costs. Respondent filed a reply adding on additional costs to her request.

Petitioner filed a responsive declaration on 06/11/2026. Petitioner requests that (1) the Court adopt the Family Court Services (FCS) recommendations, (2) order a payment plan for child support add-ons, and (3) Deny attorney’s fees and costs. Respondent filed a reply adding on additional costs to her request.

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.

In a demurrer filed and served on 10/17/25 in this case, Defendant acknowledges that the motion to transfer and coordinate was denied on 10/16/25 and in response to such ruling, Defendant filed the demurrer to the complaint in this action. ( See Demurrer, p.4:10-14). Based on the foregoing, Defendants request to stay all proceedings in this action pending the ruling on the motion to transfer and coordinate in 25VECV00900 is moot. CONCLUSION The motion is denied as moot.

On March 14, 2025, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Coordinate Related Cases. The Motion was served on Plaintiff through its attorney Christina Cicione, Esq. by electronic mail on the same date. To date, no opposition has been filed. Discussion Defendant brings the instant Motion to Coordinate Related Cases pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 404, which allows for [c]oordination of civil actions sharing a common question of fact or law . . . . (Code Civ. Pro., § 404.)

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.

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.

Motion for summary judgment on the issue of alter ego is DENIED.

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

There will probably be a substantial amount of documentary evidence which the Court and litigants would have to analyze during the course of the case. The fact that there already have been coordination orders in this case with respect to the prior Ford cases also indicates the cases in the fourth add-on petition are complex.

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.

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.

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).

Matter on the Calendar for Friday, March 07, 2025 Line 4. DEFENDANT NERISSA ZHANG's Motion To Coordinate Cases (Case No. 37-2024-00031047-Cu-Fr-Nc, San Diego) NERISSA ZHANG's Motion To Coordinate Cases, is denied. 1. Defendant Zhang seeks to have this Court send the instant case to San Diego and coordinate it with the parties' San Diego action (Zhang v. Lam, Case No. 37-2024-00031047-CU-FR-NC). 2. This Court lacks the authority to issue such an order. 3.

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.)

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.

The parties have advised that a similar motion to coordinate was heard in the case of Hatherill, et al. v. English, 2023CUMM009909: YVONNE HATHERILL, MIKAYLA HATHERILL, AND MORGAN HATHERILL, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST TO DECEDENT ... vs VIBHAY PRASAD M.D., et al. et al., LASC Case No. 23AHCV01335 on August 12, 2025, in Department X of the Los Angeles County Superior Court (Alhambra) before the Honorable Lauren Lofton and has been taken under submission.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

(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)

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.

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.

attorney began working on the case) were reasonable and 8 necessary and the hearing on this issue is continued to Tuesday, 7/15/2025 at 9:00 AM in Dept. 9 403 for Mother to submit additional information on this issue. 10 8) The Court will award to Mother $5,000 in attorney’s fees and costs for her former attorneys or 11 her current consulting attorney to draft, file, and serve declarations explaining why the fees and 12 costs incurred between 1/1/2020 and 9/30/2024

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.

hearings on an ex parte basis, Plaintiff seeks to re-schedule, coordinate, and potentially advance a number of pending motions bearing on the Plaintiffs deposition.

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.)

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.

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.

The motion of Defendant, Direct TV LLC (“defendant,”) in Case No CV20177006 requesting consolidation of Case Nos.

As a threshold matter, the court notes that, on November 3, 2025, Defendant filed a Notice of Submission of Petition for Coordination of Add-On Cases (First Add-On Case Set), in which Defendant has advised the court that Defendant submitted a Petition for Coordination of Add-On Cases (First Add-On Case Set), including this action, to the coordination trial judge of Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 5368, Ford F-150 Transmission Cases, which is currently pending in Sacramento County Superior Court.

On April 13, 2022, the Court issued a tentative ruling prior to hearing argument of counsel on April 14, 2022. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court continued the Motion for supplemental briefing regarding the recently approved settlement of PAGA claims in the Evans case, LASC case no. 20STCV10973. (Supp. Mayhood Decl., Exh. H.)

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.

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.

Case Number: 24STCV11920 Hearing Date: November 25, 2025 Dept: 26 TENTATIVE RULING November 25, 2025 24STCV11920 ( Dahlke v. 1025 McFarland LLC, et. al .) (Related/Consolidated: 25LBCV00007) RELEVANT BACKGROUND On May 13, 2024, plaintiff Dana Dahlke (Dahlke) filed the wage and hour case against defendants 1025 McFarland LLC (McFarland); Pacific RV Park (Pacific); and Anthony Delcau (Delcau) [Case No.: 24STCV11920] (the Wage and Hour Case).

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.

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.

Letters will issue on the temporary guardianship. Set follow-up hearing for February 9, 9:00 AM, J6 on the general guardianship. gmr

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.

(CSLM) moves to coordinate and consolidate the present case with an earlier-filed case filed by Defendant Unified Modular Corporation (UMC) against CSLM in Orange County, Unified Modular Corporation v. CSLM Construction, Inc., OCSC Case No. 30-2022-01256278. CSLM seeks to transfer and coordinate the Orange County action to be heard in this court, and to have the action consolidated with the present action under Code of Civil Procedure § 1048. (Motion at pp. 34.)

Finally, Father requested 5 the following sanctions: $1,000 reinstated as a portion of a previously stayed order for 6 $15,000 in Section 271 sanctions on the basis that Mother has been hiding income; 7 $1,000 in sanctions for refusing to reimburse mandatory add-ons; $2,000 on the basis that 8 Mother made unilateral legal custody decisions; and reimbursement of the $90 filing fee 9 for this Request for Order. 10 6) On 12/16/24, Mother filed

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.

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.

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.

Over the next several weeks, the parties exchanged multiple letters and voice messages to coordinate the deposition scheduling, but they were unable to reach an agreement and on February 22, 2009, plaintiff re-noticed the deposition of Mr. Schmitz for March 13, 2009. In a March 11, 2009, email, the attorney for defendants reiterated his position that he would not make Mr. Schmitz available until the final session of plaintiff’s deposition was completed.

The court notes that most of the emails sent to Defense Counsel were sent in September; the last email sent (at least provided) to Defense Counsel was sent on 12/3/25, which was still before the 12/8/25 to coordinate the surrender. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, the motion is granted.

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.

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.

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)

The Court will track this case on a special case management basis and the next case management conference is at 8:30 am on Thursday October 21; this will be the only case on calendar that morning; CM Statements due one week in advance; my CMC Tentative Order will be posted on the Internet on the Court’s web page the day before; read it. MOTION: The motion seeks to have these two actions consolidated for all purposes.

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

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.

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.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 256, 265; disapproved of on other grounds.)