Motion to Consolidate
24CV007808: SANDFORD vs TERRA NOVA COUNSELING DDP, et al. 01/30/2026 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 motion of Plaintiff in pro per James Sandford (Plaintiff) to consolidate actions is DROPPED from calendar for defective notice and failure to comply with the applicable rules.
A notice of motion, including for motions to consolidate, must be filed and served at least 16 court days before the hearing. Additional requirements for a motion to consolidate are set forth in Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350. The motion must be filed in the lowest numbered case along with a proof of service demonstrating the motion was served on all attorneys of record and all non-represented parties in all cases sought to be consolidated. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a)(2).) The notice of motion must be filed in all cases to be consolidated, must contain the caption of those cases, and must identify the parties in each case, those who have appeared, and their respective attorneys of record. (Cal.
Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a).) The use of the word must in this rule indicates these requirements are mandatory. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1.5(a)(1).) Defective notice deprives the Court of jurisdiction. (Lee v. Placer Title Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 503, 509
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?”
The hearing on this motion is scheduled for January 30, 2026. The deadline to file and serve the motion via personal services was therefore January 7, 2026. Plaintiff did not file and serve the motion until January 13, 2026. Plaintiff argues service was reasonable on January 13, 2026 because the Court did not assign the instant hearing date until January 12, 2026. When a litigant contacts the Court to reserve a hearing date, the Court merely provides available dates. It is the responsibility of the parties, not the Court, to ensure the date selected will permit the motion to be filed in compliance with statutory requirements. There is no indication in the record that
24CV007808: SANDFORD vs TERRA NOVA COUNSELING DDP, et al. 01/30/2026 Hearing on Motion to Consolidate in Department 47
Plaintiff requested or that the Court granted an order shortening the required notice for this motion. Thus, as Plaintiff did not provide proper notice, the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the motion on its merits.
Further, the notice of motion fails to include the caption of all cases to be consolidated or to identify the parties in all actions to be consolidated and their attorneys of record as required by Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a)(1)(A). Plaintiff also failed to file the notice of motion in all actions to be consolidated as required by Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a)(1)(C). As a result of these additional defects in notice, the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the merits of the motion at this time.
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.