Martin Garcia, Jr et al vs Alta Orthopaedic Medical Group

against respondent Kevin Boeve. An initial hearing was set for this petition to take place on June 26, 2026. (Not. of Hearing, filed March 5, 2026; Minute Order, June 26, 2026.) The court's minutes reflect that respondent appeared remotely at this June 26 hearing, but petitioner did not attend. (Ibid.) Respondent has not filed any documents in this action. (Minute Order, June 26, 2026.) There is no indication in the court's records that any substantive arguments were presented by respondent at the June 26 hearing. (Ibid.)

At the June 26 hearing, the court continued the hearing on the petition to this August 14 hearing. (Ibid.) No party has filed any documents since the June 26 hearing. The arbitration agreement attached to the petition does not indicate a method of service or notice. (See Pet., attah. 4(b) at pp. 7-9, P. 21(a)-(f).) "If the arbitration agreement does not provide the manner in which such service shall be made and the person upon whom service is to be made has not previously appeared in the proceeding and has not previously been served in accordance with this subdivision: [P.] (1) Service within this State shall be made in the manner provided by law for the service of summons in an action. [P.] (2) Service outside this State shall be made by mailing the copy of the petition and notice and other papers by registered or certified mail.

Personal service is the equivalent of such service by mail. Proof of service by mail shall be made by affidavit showing such mailing together with the return receipt of the United States Post Office bearing the signature of the person on whom service was made. Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, if service is made in the manner provided in this paragraph, the petition may not be heard until at least 30 days after the date of such service." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1290.4, subd. (b).) "If the arbitration agreement does not provide the manner in which such service shall be made and the person on whom service is to be made has previously appeared in the proceeding or has previously been served in accordance with subdivision (b) of this section, service shall be made in the manner provided in Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 1010) of Title 14 of Part 2 of this code." (Code Civ.

Proc., Sec. 1290.4, subd. (c).) The court will require that service be effectuated on respondent pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1290.4. Petitioner has the burden to demonstrate service. (See Evid. Code Sec. 500.) The court will order this matter off-calendar, subject to being reset after petitioner has effectuated service on respondent pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1290.4 and filed proof of service with the court.

Tentative Ruling: Martin Garcia, Jr et al vs Alta Orthopaedic Medical Group Tentative Ruling: Martin Garcia, Jr et al vs Alta Orthopaedic Medical Group Case Number

Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Fri, 08/14/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Motion: Consolidation Tentative Ruling For all reasons discussed herein, the hearing on the motion of plaintiffs for consolidation and appointment if interim co-lead class counsel is continued to October 16, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. in this department. Plaintiffs shall comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.350, as described below, no later than September 4, 2026. Attorneys that are not licensed to practice law in California shall not make any appearances until, and unless, they are admitted pro hac vice in their respective cases.

Background: The class action cases at issue in this motion all arise from allegations that a cybercriminal group, Inc. Ransom, breached defendant's computer system in March 2026, and obtained a vast amount of personally identifying information and protected health information regarding past and current patients of defendant. The plaintiffs allege that defendant breached a duty to implement and keep in place adequate data security measures and practices to protect against unauthorized access and disclosure of sensitive information.

Arguing that the cases all involve common questions of law and fact, plaintiffs Martín García, Jr., Susan French,

Darryl Genis, Mary-Ellen Kimbrell, LeeAnne Studdard, Andrew Raaf, Stephanie Wiley, and Daniel Kirkland move for consolidation and appointment of interim co-lead counsel. While there is no opposition to the request to consolidate, plaintiff Suzan Kirkland opposes the appointment of four interim co-lead counsel or, in the alternative, requests that her attorneys be appointed co-lead counsel. On June 12, 2026, defendant filed a notice of non-opposition to the motion. Analysis: "When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay." (Code Civ.

Proc., Sec. 1048, subd. (a).) "Consolidation under section 1048 is permissive, and the trial court granting consolidation must determine whether the consolidation will be for all purposes or will be limited." (Committee for Responsible Planning v. City of Indian Wells (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 191, 196, fn. 5.) "Under the statute and the case law, there are thus two types of consolidation: a consolidation for purposes of trial only, where the two actions remain otherwise separate; and a complete consolidation or consolidation for all purposes, where the two actions are merged into a single proceeding under one case number and result in only one verdict or set of findings and one judgment." (Hamilton v.

Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1127, 1147.) "Consolidation under Code of Civil Procedure section 1048 is permissive, and it is for the trial court to determine whether the consolidation is for all purposes or for trial only." (Id. at p. 1149.) California Rules of Court, rule 3.350 provides: "(a) Requirements of motion "(1) A notice of motion to consolidate must: "(A) List all named parties in each case, the names of those who have appeared, and the names of their respective attorneys of record; "(B) Contain the captions of all the cases sought to be consolidated, with the lowest numbered case shown first; and "(C) Be filed in each case sought to be consolidated. "(2) The motion to consolidate: "(A) Is deemed a single motion for the purpose of determining the appropriate filing fee, but memorandums, declarations, and other supporting papers must be filed only in the lowest numbered case; "(B) Must be served on all attorneys of record and all nonrepresented parties in all of the cases sought to be consolidated; and "(C) Must have a proof of service filed as part of the motion. "(b) Lead case Unless otherwise provided in the order granting the motion to consolidate, the lowest numbered case in the consolidated case is the lead case. "(c) Order An order granting or denying all or part of a motion to consolidate must be filed in each case sought to be consolidated.

If the motion is granted for all purposes including trial, any subsequent document must be filed only in the lead case. "(d) Caption and case number All documents filed in the consolidated case must include the caption and case number of the lead case, followed by the case numbers of all of the other consolidated cases." The motion does not comply with the procedural requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.350 in the following respects: (1) The motion was not filed in each case to be consolidated; and (2) There is no proof of service filed showing that all attorneys of record and all nonrepresented parties in all of the cases have been served.

The "Certificate of Service" attached to the end of the motion is not the same as a proof of service of the

actual documents. Proof of service must comply with Code of Civil Procedure sections 1013, et seq. The matter will be continued to allow the moving plaintiffs to comply with the procedural requirements. The court also notes that there are at least two attorneys that have appeared, by signing filed documents, that are not authorized to practice law in the State of California. Stating "pro hac vice forthcoming" is insufficient. The out-of-state attorneys will promptly apply, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 9.40, to appear pro hac vice, and pay the required fees, and they shall not make any appearances in this court until and unless the applications are granted