Motion to Consolidate
23CV012006: JOHN NDJ DOE, et al. vs CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 02/07/2025 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 motion of John NDJ Doe, et al. (Moving Parties) to consolidate John NDJ Doe, et al. v. Church of the Nazarene, et al., Case No. 23CV012006 and John NTZ Doe, et al. v. Church of the Nazarene Foundation, et al., Case No. 24CV016361 is ruled on as follows.
Moving Parties are the plaintiffs in the actions proposed for consolidation. Both actions involve claims arising from the alleged sexual assault of the minor plaintiffs by Bradley Earl Reger (Reger). The defendants include various medical and religious organizations that Moving Parties contend are liable for Regers conduct.
Moving Parties argue consolidation is appropriate because the cases involve identical claims and present common questions of law and fact. Defendant Point Loma Nazarene University (Defendant) argues the consolidation is inappropriate because the cases involve different parties and because there are factual differences affecting the various parties such that common issues do not predominate. The remaining nineteen defendants did not file responsive briefs in support of or opposition to 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
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?”
23CV012006: JOHN NDJ DOE, et al. vs CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 02/07/2025 Hearing on Motion to Consolidate in Department 47
separate actions for trial. Under the former procedure, which may be utilized where the parties are identical and the causes could have been joined, the pleadings are regarded as merged, one set of findings is made, and one judgment is rendered. In a consolidation for trial, the pleadings, verdicts, findings and judgments are kept separate; the actions are simply tried together for the sake of convenience and judicial economy. (Sanchez v. Superior Court (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 1391, 1396.)
A court may property consolidate cases even when the parties and the admissible evidence are not identical. (Jud Whitehead Heater Co. v. Obler (1952) 111 Cal.App.2d 861.) When actions are consolidated only for the purposes of trial, the evidence presented in one case is to be deemed applicable in the other insofar as it is relevant thereto . . . . (McClure v. Donovan (1949) 33 Cal.2d 717, 722.) If evidence is material in only one action, the jury may be instructed concerning the evidence that should be considered in each of the consolidated actions. (Johnson v. Western Air Express Corp. (1941) 45 Cal.App.2d 614.)
The Court is satisfied that the actions involve sufficient common questions of law and fact such that consolidation for pre-trial purposes and trial will promote judicial economy and will prevent the risk of inconsistent rulings on discovery and evidentiary matters. The court notes that if the trial judge determines the number of plaintiffs and defendants will result in confusion or prejudice, the trial judge will have authority to make any orders necessary to prevent such confusion, including making orders regarding the presentation of evidence, issuing jury instructions and if necessary, ordering separate trials.
The motion is granted. John NDJ Doe, et al. v. Church of the Nazarene, et al., Case No. 23CV012006 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 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 day before the hearing. If a proper request for hearing is not made, this shall become the order of the Court.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
23CV012006: JOHN NDJ DOE, et al. vs CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 02/07/2025 Hearing on Motion to Consolidate in Department 47
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 be forward the form to the Court Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided.