| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Motion For Transfer, Coordination, And Consolidation Of Noncomplex Cases Filed In Different Courts Pursuant To Ccp 403, 404.1, And Crc Rule 03-500
SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 302 - CGC24617952 - August 25, 2025 Hearing date: August 25, 2025 Case number: CGC24617952 Case title: ROBERTO OROZCO GONZALEZ ET AL VS. SESO, INC. ET AL Case Number: | | CGC24617952 | Case Title: | | ROBERTO OROZCO GONZALEZ ET AL VS. SESO, INC. ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-08-25 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Motion For Transfer, Coordination, And Consolidation Of Noncomplex Cases Filed In Different Courts Pursuant To Ccp 403, 404.1, And Crc Rule 03-500 Rule3-500 | Rulings: | | Matter on calendar for Monday, August 25, 2025, Line 11, PLAINTIFF EDGAR GAMBINO REYES, JAIRO GURROLA, MAURO DIAZ SANTILLAN, JAIRO GURROLA, MIGUEL MENDEZ NAVARRO's Motion For Transfer, Coordination, And Consolidation Of Noncomplex Cases Filed In Different Courts Pursuant To CCP 403, 404.1, And CRC Rule 03-500.
Plaintiffs' motion for transfer, coordination and consolidation of three non-complex cases is denied without prejudice to refiling a motion covering all cases arising out of the March 22, 2024 incident in Shasta County and after the San Diego Superior Court rules on a similar motion that was noticed to be heard by the Seso Defendants on September 12, 2025.
Although the papers filed by the parties identify four other California state court cases (the Arceo, Vilamil, Navarro, and Ramirez cases) that were pending as of the date this motion was filed and all of them arise out of the March 22, 2024 incident in Shasta County, inexplicably those four cases are not part of this motion, arguably undermining the rationale for this motion.
Moreover, this court is concerned about the unseemliness of a similar motion pending in San Diego Superior Court at the time this motion was filed, which could result in inconsistent decisions. This court believes that the appropriate course of action is for the first-filed of the two motions to be resolved first and, if appropriate, obviate the need for a motion to be heard in the San Francisco Superior Court.
For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 302 Zoom ID 160 409 7690; Passcode 516287.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.
Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.
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?”
Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.
The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/HEK). | |