Motion to Consolidate
24CV000489: METCALF-KUNELLIS vs SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT, et al. 10/17/2025 Hearing on Motion to Consolidate in Department 47
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 47 ZoomLink is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept47 and the ZoomGov ID is: 16173813009. 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 47 at (916) 874-5487 for assistance.
The notice of motion incorrectly cites Local Rule 1.06 as authority for the Courts tentative ruling system but indicates the rule has been modified for Law and Motion calendar in the Presiding Judges department. Moving Counsel is advised that the tentative ruling system for the Law and Motion calendar in the Presiding Judges department is now governed by Local Rule 1.05(C)-(D), which incorporates the modifications.
The motion of Pamela Metcalf-Kunellis (Plaintiff) to consolidate Pamela Metcalf-Kunellis v. Sacramento Municipal Utility District, et al., Case No. 24CV000489 and Pamela Metcalf- Kunellis v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 25CV015938 is GRANTED.
In both actions, Plaintiff seeks to recover damages related to personal injuries to her neck, bilateral shoulders, and back. Although the actions arise from separate incidents, Plaintiff alleges both incidents contributed to the same injuries. Sacramento Municipal Utility District and Mobrays Tree Service (Opposing Parties) oppose the motion. Opposing Parties argue the declaration submitted in support of the motion is insufficient because Plaintiffs Counsel lacks personal knowledge of the statements alleged.
The pertinent question on a motion to consolidate is whether there are common questions of law and fact. Issues of fact and law arise from the pleadings. Plaintiffs Counsel has sufficient knowledge of the allegations involved in the actions to present evidence of the issues asserted. Notably, Opposing Parties appear to concede there are common issues of law and fact, as they
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?”
indicate they would not oppose consolidation if the trial date in the lead action is vacated.
Opposing Parties argue there is insufficient time to prepare for trial if the cases are consolidated because they would need to investigate the second incident for apportionment and causation. However, the issues of apportionment and causation will exist regardless of whether the actions are consolidated. The effect of consolidation would be to eliminate the risk of inconsistent verdicts by permitting a single jury to resolve the issues of apportionment and causation. Thus, the Court will not condition consolidation on an order vacating trial, nor will the Court continue this motion to be heard concurrently with Opposing Parties pending motion to continue trial.
The motion is granted. The Court finds consolidation is appropriate because the cases involve common issues of law and fact regarding the extent that each of the incidents contributed to Plaintiffs alleged injuries. Consolidation will promote judicial efficiency and economy and avoid the risk of inconsistent verdicts. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 1048(a).)
Pamela Metcalf-Kunellis v. Sacramento Municipal Utility District, et al., Case No. 24CV000489 shall be the lead case. The case management judge assigned to the lead case shall hear case management issues in the consolidated cases. The case management timelines applicable to the lead case shall govern all cases. Any hearings pending in a law and motion department not assigned to the lead case are VACATED. The parties shall contact the law and motion department assigned to the lead case to reschedule any such hearings.
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 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.
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
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
24CV000489: METCALF-KUNELLIS vs SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT, et al. 10/17/2025 Hearing on Motion to Consolidate in Department 47
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.