DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25CV2079·eldorado·Civil·Consolidation
Hearing todayGRANTED

CODY UPSON VS. NATHAN STAMM ET AL

CONSOLIDATION

Hearing date
Aug 28, 2026
Department
9
Judge
Prevailing
Plaintiff
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffCody Upson
DefendantNathan Stamm

Ruling

August 28, 2026 Dept. 9 Civil Tentative Rulings

15. 25CV2079 CODY UPSON VS. NATHAN STAMM ET AL CONSOLIDATION

16. 26CV0473 AMY FRANK VS. NATHAN STAMM ET AL CONSOLIDATION

On August 7, 2026, the Court issued its tentative ruling advising it was inclined to grant Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate Actions upon stipulation or the filing of the notice of the motion in the Lead (case no. 25CV2079).

Plaintiff has filed a Stipulation wherein all Parties agree to consolidate the actions.

TENTATIVE RULING #15 AND #16: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS IS GRANTED.

NO HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE HELD UNLESS A REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT IS TRANSMITTED ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH THE COURT’S WEBSITE OR BY TELEPHONE TO THE COURT AT (530) 621-6551 BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. CAL. RULE CT. 3.1308; LOCAL RULE 8.05.07; SEE ALSO LEWIS V. SUPERIOR COURT, 19 CAL.4TH 1232, 1247 (1999).

NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES OF A REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT AND THE GROUNDS UPON WHICH ARGUMENT IS BEING REQUESTED MUST BE MADE BY TELEPHONE OR IN PERSON BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. CAL. RULE CT. 3.1308; EL DORADO COUNTY LOCAL RULE 8.05.07. PROOF OF SERVICE OF SAID NOTICE MUST BE FILED PRIOR TO OR AT THE HEARING.

LONG CAUSE HEARINGS MUST BE REQUESTED BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED AND THE PARTIES ARE TO PROVIDE THE COURT WITH THREE MUTUALLY AGREEABLE DATES ON FRIDAY AFTERNOONS AT 2:30 P.M.

LONG CAUSE ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTS WILL BE SET FOR HEARING ON ONE OF THE THREE MUTUALLY AGREEABLE DATES ON FRIDAY AFTERNOONS AT 2:30 P.M. THE COURT WILL ADVISE THE PARTIES OF THE LONG CAUSE HEARING DATE AND TIME BY 5:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED.

PARTIES MAY PERSONALLY APPEAR AT THE HEARING.

42

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