Motion to Consolidate
24CV007707: AMIL vs COLE, et al. 06/20/2025 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 fails to provide notice of the Courts tentative ruling system for the Law and Motion calendar in the Presiding Judges department. (See 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 hearing, moving counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing by Zoom or by telephone.
The motion of John E. Duvivier (Moving Party) to consolidate Aisha Amil v. Corrie Cole, et al.., Case No. 24CV007707 and Arch Insurance Company v. Corrie Cole, et al., Case No 24CV007856 is ruled on as follows.
Moving Party failed to file the notice of motion in all cases to be consolidated as required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a)(1).) Defective notice deprives the Court of jurisdiction. (Lee v Superior Court (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 503, 509.) However, the Court notes the motion is supported by a stipulation of all parties in all actions to be consolidated. Based on the stipulation, the Court finds the parties have waived the defects in notice. Further, while the Court generally requires noticed motions for requests to consolidate, there is authority indicating the Court may grant a stipulation to consolidate without the need for a formal written motion. (Sutter Heath Uninsured Pricing Cases (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 495, 514.) Accordingly, in light of the stipulation, the Court will consider the motion on its merits.
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 Court finds good cause for consolidation based on the stipulation and because the cases involve common issues of law and fact as the actions relate to same motor vehicle collision. Consolidation will promote judicial efficiency and economy and avoid the risk of inconsistent verdicts. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1048(a).)
24CV007707: AMIL vs COLE, et al. 06/20/2025 Hearing on Motion to Consolidate in Department 47
The motion is granted. Aisha Amil v. Corrie Cole, et al.., Case No. 24CV007707 shall be the lead case. The case management judge assigned to the lead case shall hear case management issues in the consolidated cases. The case management timelines applicable to the lead case shall govern all cases. Any hearings scheduled in departments other than the departments assigned to the lead case are VACATED. The parties shall contact the law and motion department assigned to the lead case to reschedule the hearings for such 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 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.