On April 14, 2015 a
Order
was filed
involving a dispute between
Gurraj Grewal,
Sonora Gasoline Corporation,
Voyager Restaurant Group, Inc.,
and
2012-Sip-1 Venture Llc,
Gurraj Grewal,
Nirmal Singh,
Parneet , Doe 2 Parmar,
Roseville Petroleum, Inc.,
Sabal Financial Group Lp,
Sonora Gasoline Corporation,
Sonora Petroleum, Inc.,
Tennessee Commerce Bank,
for civil
in the District Court of Placer County.
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT. OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF PLACER -
JAN 09 2018 |
JAKE CHATTERS
EXECUTIVE OFFICER & CLERK
By:Jl.,Hinds, Deput
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER »
OC
-|VOYAGER RESTAURANT GROUP, Case No.: SCV 0035599
KF
INC., a California Corporation = -
oo — RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER.
WN
Plaintiff; . . ;
VS, |
HK
SONORA GASOLINE CORPORATION,
DH
et al,
- Defendants.
DN
On December 8, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion to consolidate actions
HMO
and continue trial, set for hearing on January 9, 2018. In advance of the
TD
hearing, the court published a tentative ruling. Oral argument. was requested|
WNP
and the court conducted a hearing; appearances were as shown upon the
minutes.
The court has considered the papers submitted in support of, and in
BP
opposition to, the motion, and entertained the arguments of counsel. Good
DM
| Cause appearing to the satisfaction of the court, the court determines that
the tentative ruling was correct, and adopts the tentative ruling, as follows:
\//T
ON
Voyager Restaurant Group, Inc.’s (“Voyager’s”) Motion: to
Continue Trial and to Consolidate is.denied.
WN
The court has discretion to consolidate separate actions
which involve a common question of law or fact pursuant to
BP
Code of Civil Procedure section 1048(a). In this case, Voyager
wo
seeks to consolidate the instant action with Case No. SCV-
nA
39888, Parmar, LLC v. Voyager Restaurant Group, Inc., et al
waon
(‘the Parmar Action”). Voyager notes that the two cases both
relate to the same real property, a lease related to operation of a
wow
i 10 business at the property, and possession of the property, and
11 that both cases involve overlapping facts and witnesses.
12 However, it should be noted that the defendants in the current
13 action are not parties to the Parmar Action. Plaintiff and cross-
14 defendants in the Parmar action are not parties to the current
15 action. Voyager also fails to note that the Parmar action has
16 already been consolidated with another case, Case No. MCV-
17 68268, Voyager Restaurant Group, Inc. v. Parmar, LLC,a .
18 forcible detainer case.
19 Finally, the current case is set for trial on March 19, 2018,
20 whereas the Parmar action was only filed in August 2017, and is
21 still in the pleading stage. Based upon the foregoing, the court
22 finds that consolidation of the instant case with the Parmar
| 23 action is not warranted.
24
25 JAN 0 9 20]
26 |DATED:.
27 ON BLE lene Sncques
28 Commissioner of the Superior Court
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER
CLERK’ S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING (C.CP. §1013a(4))
Case No.: S-CV-0035599
Case Name: Voyager Restaurant Group, Inc. vs. Sonora Petroleum, Inc. (FKA) et al
I, the undersigned,-certify that Iam the clerk of the Superior Court of California, County of
Placer, and I am not a party to this case.
I mailed copies of the documents(s) indicated below:
Order: Ruling on Submitted Matter
True copies of the documents were mailed following standard court practices in a sealed
envelope with postage fully prepaid, addressed as follows:
Matthew Bradford Brian Healy
3439 Brookside Road Ste 210 351 California Street Suite 600
Stockton, CA 95219° San Francisco, CA 94104
Denae Budde : Paul Warner
2121 N California Blvd Suite 1010 1624 Santa Clara Dr Ste 220
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Roseville, CA 95661
Jack Burstein
1730 Sonoma Blvd
Vallejo, CA 94590
lam readily familiar with the court’s business practices for collecting and processing
correspondence for mailing; pursuant to those practices, these documents are delivered to
[X] the US Postal Service
L] ups
[_] FedEx
|_| Interoffice mail
[-] Other;
on 01/09/2018 in Placer County, California.
Dated:01/09/2018 JAKE CHATTERS
Clerk of the Superior Court
~T. Hinds , Deputy Clerk
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT. OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF PLACER - JAN 09 2018 | JAKE CHATTERS EXECUTIVE OFFICER & CLERK By:Jl.,Hinds, Deput SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER » OC -|VOYAGER RESTAURANT GROUP, Case No.: SCV 0035599 KF INC., a California Corporation = - oo — RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER. WN Plaintiff; . . ; VS, | HK SONORA GASOLINE CORPORATION, DH et al, - Defendants. DN On December 8, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion to consolidate actions HMO and continue trial, set for hearing on January 9, 2018. In advance of the TD hearing, the court published a tentative ruling. Oral argument. was requested| WNP and the court conducted a hearing; appearances were as shown upon the minutes. The court has considered the papers submitted in support of, and in BP opposition to, the motion, and entertained the arguments of counsel. Good DM | Cause appearing to the satisfaction of the court, the court determines that the tentative ruling was correct, and adopts the tentative ruling, as follows: \//T ON Voyager Restaurant Group, Inc.’s (“Voyager’s”) Motion: to Continue Trial and to Consolidate is.denied. WN The court has discretion to consolidate separate actions which involve a common question of law or fact pursuant to BP Code of Civil Procedure section 1048(a). In this case, Voyager wo seeks to consolidate the instant action with Case No. SCV- nA 39888, Parmar, LLC v. Voyager Restaurant Group, Inc., et al waon (‘the Parmar Action”). Voyager notes that the two cases both relate to the same real property, a lease related to operation of a wow i 10 business at the property, and possession of the property, and 11 that both cases involve overlapping facts and witnesses. 12 However, it should be noted that the defendants in the current 13 action are not parties to the Parmar Action. Plaintiff and cross- 14 defendants in the Parmar action are not parties to the current 15 action. Voyager also fails to note that the Parmar action has 16 already been consolidated with another case, Case No. MCV- 17 68268, Voyager Restaurant Group, Inc. v. Parmar, LLC,a . 18 forcible detainer case. 19 Finally, the current case is set for trial on March 19, 2018, 20 whereas the Parmar action was only filed in August 2017, and is 21 still in the pleading stage. Based upon the foregoing, the court 22 finds that consolidation of the instant case with the Parmar | 23 action is not warranted. 24 25 JAN 0 9 20] 26 |DATED:. 27 ON BLE lene Sncques 28 Commissioner of the Superior Court SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER CLERK’ S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING (C.CP. §1013a(4)) Case No.: S-CV-0035599 Case Name: Voyager Restaurant Group, Inc. vs. Sonora Petroleum, Inc. (FKA) et al I, the undersigned,-certify that Iam the clerk of the Superior Court of California, County of Placer, and I am not a party to this case. I mailed copies of the documents(s) indicated below: Order: Ruling on Submitted Matter True copies of the documents were mailed following standard court practices in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, addressed as follows: Matthew Bradford Brian Healy 3439 Brookside Road Ste 210 351 California Street Suite 600 Stockton, CA 95219° San Francisco, CA 94104 Denae Budde : Paul Warner 2121 N California Blvd Suite 1010 1624 Santa Clara Dr Ste 220 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Roseville, CA 95661 Jack Burstein 1730 Sonoma Blvd Vallejo, CA 94590 lam readily familiar with the court’s business practices for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing; pursuant to those practices, these documents are delivered to [X] the US Postal Service L] ups [_] FedEx |_| Interoffice mail [-] Other; on 01/09/2018 in Placer County, California. Dated:01/09/2018 JAKE CHATTERS Clerk of the Superior Court ~T. Hinds , Deputy Clerk