Motion for Consolidation of Cases
JUNE 1, 2026 LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR PAGE 14 JUDGE: HONORABLE DAVID A. SILBERMAN, DEPARTMENT 11 ________________________________________________________________________
02:00 PM LINE 7 24-CLJ-04102 TIMOTHY P MENZ VS YANG SHEN
TIMOTHY P MENZ PRO SE YANG SHEN ALEXANDER M. KALLIS
Notice of Motion and Motion for Consolidation of Cases
TENTATIVE RULING:
The Motion for Consolidation of Cases by Defendant Yang Shen (“Defendant”) is DENIED.
Defendant’s Notice of Motion fails to include an address for the hearing. Since then, the court served a notice of reassignment of this action notifying all parties that all previously set hearings will be heard in Department 11, which is located at 800 North Humboldt Street, San Mateo, CA, 94401, Courtroom G. Therefore, the parties are aware of the correct department and address for the hearing. Defendant is advised to include the address for the hearing in any future notice.
However, Defendant has not complied with CRC rule 3.350. Defendant seeks to consolidate this civil action with a pending family court action, Yang Shen v. Timothy Menz, San Mateo Superior Court Case no. 19FAM02059 (“family action”).
A motion to consolidate requires that the notice of motion be filed in each case sought to be consolidated, and the motion itself must be filed only in the lowest numbered case. CRC, rule 3.350(a)(1)(C), (a)(2)(A).
It does not appear that Defendant filed a notice of this Motion in the family action as required. More importantly, the family action, which was filed in 2019, is the lowest numbered case. As such, Defendant must bring any motion to consolidate in the family action.
However, the court should note that it has serious questions whether it has jurisdiction over the instant case at all, which appears to deal with family law matters. It also has questions whether this civil case may appropriately be consolidated with a family law case. Askew v. Askew (1994) 22 Cal. App. 4th 942, 961, as modified on denial of reh’g (Mar. 14, 1994) (“After a family law court acquires jurisdiction to divide community property in a dissolution action, no other department of a superior court may make an order adversely affecting that division.”); McMillin v.
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?”
Eare (2021) 70 Cal. App. 5th 893, 918, as modified (Feb. 23, 2022) (“Where a proceeding has been assigned for hearing and determination to one department of the superior court by the presiding judge and the proceeding has not been finally disposed of, it is beyond the jurisdictional authority of another department of the same court to interfere with the exercise of the power of the department to which the proceeding has been so assigned. If such were not the law, conflicting adjudications of the same subject matter by different departments of the one court would bring about an anomalous situation and doubtless lead to much confusion.”); cf.
Guardianship of Paduano (1989) 215 Cal. App. 3d 346, 352 (allowing consolidation of a probate proceeding with a family proceeding in the family court).
JUNE 1, 2026 LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR PAGE 15 JUDGE: HONORABLE DAVID A. SILBERMAN, DEPARTMENT 11 ________________________________________________________________________ If Plaintiff intends to proceed with his case in the civil division, he will need at the appropriate time to first explain why it will not interfere with the exercise of the power of the Family Law department. If the matters raised in this lawsuit can be raised in that court, that is where they should be raised.
Any party who contests a tentative ruling must email Dept11@sanmateocourt.org with a copy to all other parties by 4:00 p.m. stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests.
If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, defendant’s counsel shall prepare a written order consistent with the court’s ruling for the court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312 and Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv), and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in this action. The order should be e-filed only, do not email or mail a hard copy to the court.