Petition for Coordination Motion to Transfer
24CV014460: MOLLINS vs RELIANCE, INC., et al. 04/17/2026 Hearing on Petition for Coordination Motion to Transfer for purposes of Coordination in Department 17A
Tentative Ruling
NOTICE: If oral arguments are requested or appearances are required, the hearing may be conducted in person or remotely via ZoomGov [which includes telephonic and teleconferencing options]. No Court Call appearances will be permitted. If you choose to use Zoom you must use your first and last name on your ZoomGov account so the court can positively identify you. The Department 17A ZoomLink is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16173813009 and the ZoomGov ID is: 161 7381 3009. Appearances via videoconference using the above link are preferred. To appear on ZoomGov by phone, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the ZoomGov ID referenced above, available phone commands include *6 to mute/unmute or *9 to raise your hand. If you experience issues joining your hearing, please contact the clerk in Department 17A at (916) 874-5487 for assistance.
The motion of Defendants Reliance, Inc. and Karla Lewis (Defendants) to transfer Sean Mollins v. Reliance, Inc., et al., Case No. S-CV0055198 (the Placer Action) pending before the Superior Court of California, County of Placer for coordination with the instant action, Ryan Mollins v. Reliance, Inc., et al., Case No. 24CV014460 (the Sacramento Action) is ruled on as follows.
The Placer Action and Sacramento Action both involve claims for defamation, labor code violations, and wrongful termination arising from Defendants alleged retaliation against Sean Mollins (Sean), the plaintiff in the Placer Action, and Ryan Mollins (Ryan), the plaintiff in the Sacramento Action (collectively Plaintiffs). Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 403, Defendants requests the Court transfer the Placer Action for coordination with the Sacramento Action. In opposition, Plaintiffs suggest they may be willing to agree to transferring the Placer Action to Sacramento County, but oppose any order coordinating the actions for purposes of discovery or motions for summary judgment.
The procedure for coordination of actions may be invoked when civil actions sharing a common question of fact or law are pending in different courts. (CCP § 404.) Under Code of Civil Procedure section 403, a motion for coordination of noncomplex actions must be supported by a showing that (1) the actions involve a common question of fact or law; (2) the actions are noncomplex; (3) the actions meet the standards specified in Code of Civil Procedure section 404.1; and (4) the moving party has made a good faith effort to obtain agreement to the transfer from all parties to each action. (
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
24CV014460: MOLLINS vs RELIANCE, INC., et al. 04/17/2026 Hearing on Petition for Coordination Motion to Transfer for purposes of Coordination in Department 17A
support the ends of justice, the Court references the standards set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 3.500(d). In granting the motion, the Court may order the actions consolidated without the need for a separate motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 403.)
The Court finds transfer and coordination will promote the ends of justice. The actions are noncomplex. The actions arise from the same alleged protected activity and share significant common questions of law and fact as to whether the Plaintiffs actions were protected and whether Defendants subsequent actions were motivated by a desire to retaliate against Plaintiffs. In opposition, Plaintiffs concede there are some overlapping witnesses, overlapping protected activity, and appreciate the convenience of Sacramento County for both cases[.] (Opposition, p. 12:22-23.)
The actions are at similar stages, with written discovery having been commenced but no depositions having been taken. The Court finds having a single judge hear motions in both actions would promote the efficient utilization of judicial facilities and staff resources and would avoid the potential for duplicative or inconsistent rulings.
The motion to transfer the Placer Action for coordination is granted. Although Defendant did not expressly request consolidation, the Court notes that the same factors warranting coordination also support consolidation under Code of Civil Procedure § 1008. Accordingly, the Court orders the actions to be consolidated for pre-trial purposes and trial assignment. Once assigned, the trial judge shall have authority to determine the order that the actions should proceed to trial.
Ryan Mollins v. Reliance, Inc., et al., Case No. 24CV014460 shall be the lead case. The Civil Home Court Department assigned to the lead case shall be assigned to the consolidated cases. The case management timelines applicable to the lead case shall govern all cases.
Moving Party shall take all action necessary to ensure Sean Mollins v. Reliance, Inc., et al., Case No. S-CV0055198 is transferred from the Placer County Superior Court to the Sacramento County Superior Court, including payment of any required transfer fees.
This case has been assigned to Department 17A for hearing. In the event that either party requests a hearing the matter will be heard at 9:30 a.m. in Department 17A. Any party requesting an oral argument must contact the clerk at (916) 874-5487 and opposing counsel or parties in pro per by 12:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing. If a proper request for hearing is not made, this shall become the order of the Court.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
24CV014460: MOLLINS vs RELIANCE, INC., et al. 04/17/2026 Hearing on Petition for Coordination Motion to Transfer for purposes of Coordination in Department 17A
Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government Code section 68086 and California Rules of Court, rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Courts Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list, Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk.
If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided.