Motion to consolidate actions
party may choose to act as his or her own attorney. Such a party is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater consideration than other litigants and attorneys. Thus, as is the case with attorneys, pro. per. litigants must follow correct rules of procedure.”].)
For this reason, the Motion is DENIED without prejudice.
Because this issue was raised by the Court, no sanctions will be imposed.
Additionally, the Court notes that from October- December 2025 Plaintiff’s counsel and Defendant attempted to work out a Stipulation and Protective Order with no resolution. (Decl. of Dhaliwal¶¶5-11.) Moreover, there are four more pending discovery motions on calendar in August 2026 and January 2027 (trial is 8/3/2026). The Court encourages the parties to continue their meet and confer efforts.
Plaintiff to give notice. 101 Rodriguez vs. Saathoff, 25-01531630
Defendants Bradley Jordan Saathoff and J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc. move for an order consolidating this action with Nunez vs. J B Hunt Transport Inc, Case No. 30-2026-01555419-CU-PA-CJC for all purposes.
When there are actions involving common questions of law or fact pending, a court may order a joint trial of any or all of the matters in issue in the actions or may order all the actions consolidated, or such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048(a).)
The instant action is a personal injury suit arising out of a January 5, 2025 vehicle collision. Plaintiff Luz Jessica Rodriguez alleges her vehicle was struck by a vehicle operated by Saathoff and owned by J.B. Hunt. The second action was filed by Yadira Nunez against the same defendants for motor vehicle and general negligence based on the same collision. Because these actions arise out of the same incident, they will involve common questions of fact regarding the vehicle collision. Moreover, it is likely that they will involve common questions of law, such as respondeat superior liability and issues regarding comparative fault. Thus, the Court finds consolidation for all purposes to be warranted here.
In light of the above, the Motion to Consolidate is GRANTED.
The Case Management Conference is continued to August 13, 2026 at 1:30 p.m.
Moving party to give notice. 102 Kaufman vs. Varraveto, 25-01525302
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?”
Defendant Joseph Varraveto (“Defendant”) demurs to the to the first cause of action for breach of guaranty, second cause of action for promissory fraud, and third cause of action for fraud in the inducement. Alternatively, Defendant asks the Court to stay the case pending the “resolution of Deliver It Overnite, LLC, Case No. 8:25-bk- 10446-SC, currently pending before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California, given that Plaintiff seeks the same recovery under the same promissory note in both actions. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(c); Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 418.10(a)(2); see also Caiafa Prof. Law Corp. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 15 Cal.App.4th 800, 804 (1993).”
Defendant also requests judicial notice of: (1) the Secured Demand Promissory Note, entered into between Scott D. Kaufman (“Plaintiff” or “Kaufman”) and DI Overnite, LLC (“DIO”), DI Logistics LLC, DI Overnite Investments, LLC, and DI Express, LLC on December 22, 2024, (2) Declaration Under Penalty of Perjury for Non- Individual Debtors, filed by Plaintiff, on behalf of DIO, in the matter entitled, Deliver It Overnite, LLC, Case No. 8:25-bk 10446-SC, currently pending in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California
I. DEMURRER
On June 12, 2026, Plaintiff Scott Kaufman, proceeding in pro per, filed the operative First Amended Complaint. Thus, the demurrer is moot pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 472(a), which states:
“A party may amend its pleading once without leave of the court at any time before the answer, demurrer, or motion to strike is filed, or after a demurrer or motion to strike is filed but before the demurrer or motion to strike is heard if the amended pleading is filed and served no later than the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer or motion to strike.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 472, subd. (a).)
II. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
Defendant requests judicial notice of the following documents:
1. The Secured Demand Promissory Note, entered into between Scott D. Kaufman and DI Overnite, LLC, DI