DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25CECG00038·fresno·Civil·Probate
Hearing about 2 months agoGRANTED

In Re: Angel Eduardo Antonio Kuripeth

By Petitioner to Consolidate Cases for All Purposes

Hearing date
Jul 15, 2026
Department
501
Judge
Prevailing
Plaintiff

Motion type

Browse all Petition rulings statewide →

Parties

PetitionerSoledad Kuripeth Manuel
OtherAngel Eduardo Antonio Kuripeth
OtherOscar Antonio Garcia
OtherSteven Antonio Kuripeth
OtherJustin Antonio Kuripeth

Ruling

(49) Tentative Ruling

Re: In Re: Angel Eduardo Antonio Kuripeth Superior Court Case No. 25CECG00038

In Re: Oscar Antonio Garcia Superior Court Case No. 25CECG00039

In Re: Steven Antonio Kuripeth Superior Court Case No. 25CECG00040

In Re: Justin Antonio Kuripeth Superior Court Case No. 25CECG00041

Hearing Date: July 15, 2026 (Dept. 501)

Motion: By Petitioner to Consolidate Cases for All Purposes

Tentative Ruling:

To grant, consolidating for all purposes Case No. 25CECG00038 with Case Nos. 25CECG00039, 25CECG00040, and 25CECG00041, with Case No. 25CECG00038 being designated as the master file.

If oral argument is timely requested, such argument will be heard on Thursday July 16, 2026 at 3:30 pm.

Explanation:

Petitioner Soledad Kuripeth Manuel (“Petitioner”) on behalf of claimants Angel Antonio-Kuripeth, Oscar Alejandro Antonio Kuripeth, Steven Antonio-Kuripeth, and Justin Antonio-Kuripeth (“Claimants”) moves to consolidate Case Nos. 25CECG00038, 25CECG00039, 25CECG00040, and 25CECG00041 with Case No. 25CECG00038 as lead.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1048, subdivision (a), states in pertinent part, “When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court...it may order all the actions consolidated”. Rules of Court, Rule 3.350, subdivision (a)(1), states in pertinent part, “A notice of motion to consolidate must...[b]e filed in each case sought to be consolidated.”

Petitioner moves to have Claimants’ cases consolidated because Claimants are identically situated and intended to receive identical settlements. On the merits, the court agrees.

However, Petitioner failed to comply with Rules of Court, Rule 3.350, subdivision (a)(1)(C), by failing to file a notice of hearing in Case Nos. 25CECG00039, 25CECG00040, and 25CECG00041. However, the purpose of filing a notice in all cases is to ensure all 12

parties are notified of the consolidation and case raise any objections they might have. In the present cases, Petitioner is the only party. Therefore, no prejudice has resulted due to Petitioner’s failure to file the notices of hearing. Accordingly, the motion to consolidate Case Nos. 25CECG00038, 25CECG00039, 25CECG00040, and 25CECG00041 with Case No. 25CECG00038 being designated as the master file is granted.

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.

Tentative Ruling

Issued By: SMC on July 14, 2026. (Judge’s initials) (Date)

13

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share