Motion to Consolidate
34-2022-00326202-CU-BC-GDS: Martin Tejeda vs. Keith Seibert 08/08/2025 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. The Courts tentative ruling system for the Law and Motion calendar in the Presiding Judges department is governed by Local Rule 1.05(C)-(D). Moving counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel and/or self-represented litigants and advise them of Local Rule 1.05, the Courts tentative ruling procedure, and the manner to request a hearing. If moving counsel is unable to contact opposing parties prior to the hearing, moving counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing by Zoom or by telephone.
The motion of C.R.C. Roofing, Inc. (Moving Party) to consolidate Martin Tejeda v. Keith Seibert, et al., Case No. 34-2022-00326202 (the Main action); CRC Roofing, Inc. v. Miguel Ruiz-Gomez, Case No. 34-2023-00334022 (the Embezzlement action); Miguel Ruiz-Gomez v. CRC Roofing, Inc., et al., Case No. 23CV000398 (the Dissolution action); and Miguel Ruiz- Gomez v. CRC Roofing, Inc., Case No. 25WM000072 (the Writ action) is ruled on as follows.
The Main action involves claims by multiple parties for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, constructive trust, mismanagement, conversion, accounting, and to quiet title related to various companies. Trial in the Main Action is set for jury trial on October 6, 2025. The Embezzlement action involves claims that Ruiz-Gomez utilized his position at CRC Roofing, Inc. (CRC) to embezzle funds. The Embezzlement action is currently set for a non-jury trial on August 11, 2025. The Dissolution action involves a request by Ruiz-Gomez to dissolve CRC and is set for a non-jury trial on March 17, 2026. The Writ action was recently commenced on May 2, 2025 and no respondent has yet appeared.
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?”
34-2022-00326202-CU-BC-GDS: Martin Tejeda vs. Keith Seibert 08/08/2025 Hearing on Motion to Consolidate in Department 47
Moving Party proposed that each of these actions be consolidated and set for a single trial on October 6, 2025. Martin Tejeda joins the request for consolidation. Keith Seibert, Miguel Ruiz- Gomez and Michael A Sastre (Opposing Parties) oppose the motion.
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. § 1048.)
Moving Party argues the cases arise from overlapping facts and involve common issues related to breaches of fiduciary duties, corporate governance, and financial mismanagement and contends consolidation will promote judicial economy and prevent the risk of inconsistent verdicts.
Opposing Parties argue the cases involve different variations of parties participating in different capacities, are at different stages of the proceedings, have different requirements for jury or bench trials and that there is no risk of inconsistent verdicts. Opposing Parties represent discovery is not complete and that they are seeking some of the information necessary to proceed to trial through the Writ action.
Upon review of the collective papers, the Court finds consolidation of the Main action and Embezzlement action would promote judicial economy. Both actions involve allegations of embezzlement related to CRC. (See First Amended Complaint in Main Action, ¶¶ 105, 111; Complaint in Embezzlement Action, generally.) Consolidation will eliminate the duplication of evidence and avoid the risk of inconsistent verdicts.
However, the Court finds the Dissolution and Writ actions involve discrete issues and are at a substantially different stage of proceedings. Consolidation of those actions at this time would not promote judicial economy.
The motion is granted, in part, and denied, in part. Martin Tejeda v. Keith Seibert, et al., Case No. 34-2022-00326202 and CRC Roofing, Inc. v. Miguel Ruiz-Gomez, Case No. 34-2023- 00334022 are ordered consolidated. The remaining actions shall remain separate.
Martin Tejeda v. Keith Seibert, et al., Case No. 34-2022-00326202 shall be the lead case. The case management judge assigned to the lead case shall hear case management issues in the
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
34-2022-00326202-CU-BC-GDS: Martin Tejeda vs. Keith Seibert 08/08/2025 Hearing on Motion to Consolidate in Department 47
consolidated cases. The case management timelines applicable to the lead case shall govern all cases. Any hearings in actions other than the lead case are VACATED. The parties shall contact the law and motion department assigned to the lead case to reschedule the hearings for any pending law and motion matters.
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 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.