Motion to Consolidate
23CV012006: JOHN NDJ DOE, et al. vs CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 05/29/2026 Hearing on Motion to Consolidate in Department 17A
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 17A ZoomLink is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16173813009 and the ZoomGov ID is: 161 7381 3009. 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 17A at (916) 874-5487 for assistance.
The motion of Plaintiffs John Ndj Doe, et al. (Plaintiffs) to consolidate John NDJ Doe, et al. v. Church of the Nazarene, et al., Case No. 23CV012006 (the NDJ Action) (previously consolidated with John NTZ Doe, et al. v. Church of the Nazarene, et al., Case No. 24CV016361) and John NRS Doe v. Mountain Lifeflight, Inc., et al., Case No. 25CV026765 (the NRS Action) is ruled on as follows.
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.)
Plaintiff explains the cases to be consolidated involve claims by 32 plaintiffs arising from alleged sexual abuse, harassment and assault by Bradley Earl Reger (Reger). Plaintiff argues the consolidation is appropriate because the actions share a common nexus as Reger had a pattern of sexually abusing young boys under the guise of medical treatment and while using a position of power and authority with religious entities to perpetrate the abuse. Plaintiffs assert that without consolidation there will be duplicative testimony as the plaintiffs in the two actions would be called as witnesses in the other action and because the non-party witnesses are the same for both actions. Plaintiffs also argue there will be duplicative motions in limine and that without consolidation there is a risk of inconsistent rulings.
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?”
Susanville Church of the Nazarene, Pietro DeSantis II, Joseph Sturgeon and Joanne Sturgeon
23CV012006: JOHN NDJ DOE, et al. vs CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 05/29/2026 Hearing on Motion to Consolidate in Department 17A
(Susanville Defendants) oppose the motion. The Susanville Defendants contend there are differences in the litigation that weight against consolidation. Specifically, the Susanville Defendants indicate they are not parties in the NRS Action, that the NRS Action contains claims for Sex Trafficking, Civil Conspiracy and punitive damages that are not asserted in the NDJ Action. Susanville Defendants argue consolidation under these circumstances would cause undue confusion.
Point Loma Nazarene University (PLNU) filed a response to the motion indicating it does not oppose consolidation. PLNU represents there is a pending motion for determination of good faith settlement in the NDJ Action and requests that if the actions are consolidated, the Court deem the GFS Motion timely served in all consolidated matters. PLNUs pending motion is not the subject of this hearing. A response to an unrelated motion is not the proper method for requesting affirmative relief related to PLNUs motion for determination of good faith. The Court therefore declines to consider PLNUs request.
The Court finds the cases share common questions of law and fact and that consolidation will promote judicial economy and eliminate the risk of inconsistent verdicts. While there may be additional claims asserted in the NDJ Action, the fact that the parties are different or that there may be some evidence only admissible in one of the actions does not bar consolidation. (Jud Whitehead Heater Co. v. Obler (1952) 111 Cal.App.2d 861.) To the extent consolidation creates a risk of confusion, the trial judge will have authority to take any appropriate steps necessary to avoid prejudice, including bifurcating trial.
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 Civil Home Court Department assigned to the lead case shall be assigned to the consolidated cases. The case management timelines applicable to the lead case shall govern all cases. Any law and motion matters pending in a department not assigned to the lead case are VACATED. The parties shall contact the Civil Home Court Department assigned to the lead case to reschedule any such hearings.
This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)
This case has been assigned to Department 17A for hearing. In the event that either party
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
23CV012006: JOHN NDJ DOE, et al. vs CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 05/29/2026 Hearing on Motion to Consolidate in Department 17A
requests a hearing the matter will be heard at 9:30 a.m. in Department 17A. 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.