Monica Torres-Mendoza vs. Penske Truck Leasing Co.

Here, the notice of motion fails 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). The Court is also unable to determine whether Moving Party filed the notice of motion in all actions to be consolidated as required by Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a)(1)(C) because the case number provided for one of the cases sought to be consolidated, 23CV006606 does not match the title of the case as identified in the notice of the motion. Based on the defects in notice, the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the merits of the motion.

The Court notes Plaintiff alternatively moves for joinder. In the moving memorandum, Plaintiff cites to Code of Civil Procedure section 379 as authority that certain defendants may be joined in one action. However, Plaintiff does not cite any authority indicating section 379 was intended to authorize a “motion for joinder.” To the extent Plaintiff cites to section 379 in support of a

34-2022-00324160-CU-PA-GDS: Monica Torres-Mendoza vs. Penske Truck Leasing Co. 01/19/2024 Hearing on Motion to Consolidate in Department 47

motion to consolidate, as noted above, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the notice requirements for such a motion. To the extent Plaintiff seeks leave to amend the complaint to add defendants that may be properly joined under section 379, the Court notes motions to amend the complaint are heard in the general civil law and motion departments, not this department. Thus, any such motion is not properly before the Court and will not be considered at this time.

The motion is therefore dropped from calendar.

The notice of motion also fails to provide notice of the modifications to Local Rule 1.06 for motions pending before the Presiding Judge. All noticed motions in the Presiding Judge’s Department shall include the following information in the notice: “Local Rule 1.06 (A) is modified such that tentative rulings will be issued two days prior to the hearing date and the party requesting argument is required to provide notice to the Court and counsel of that request by noon the following day.” (Additional info available on the Court’s website at: https://saccourt.ca.gov/civil/presiding-judge-info.aspx.) Counsel for moving party shall contact all other parties and advise them of the modifications to the tentative ruling system for this motion.

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 Court’s 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 be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.