DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CV2025-1526·yolo·Civil·Civil
Hearing 3 months agoDENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Pacific Compensation Insurance Company v. Agco Corporation

request for judicial notice; motion to consolidate

Hearing date
Jun 10, 2026
Department
Fourteen
Judge
Prevailing
Opposing Party

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffRoberto Olvera Ruiz
PlaintiffRoberto Ruiz Carranco
PlaintiffMatilde Carranco
PlaintiffPacific Compensation Insurance Company
DefendantAgco Corporation
PlaintiffAbigail Daritza Ruiz Carranco

Ruling

Case: Pacific Compensation Insurance Company v. Agco Corporation Case No. CV2025-1526 Hearing Date: June 10, 2026 Department Fourteen 9:00a.m.

Motion to consolidate:

Defendant Agco Corporation’s request for judicial notice is GRANTED. (Evid. Code, §§ 452 subd. (d), 453.)

Plaintiff Abigail Daritza Ruiz Carranco, individually and as successor in interest to the estate of Roberto Olvera Ruiz, and Roberto Ruiz Carranco, a minor by and through his guardian ad litem Matilde Carranco’s request for judicial notice is GRANTED IN PART. (Evid. Code, §§ 452 subd. (d), 453.) While the Court takes judicial notice of Exhibits A and B, the Court does not take notice of request no. 3 because plaintiff Pacific Compensation Insurance Company did not file its complaint on May 27, 2025.

Defendant Agco Corporation’s motion to consolidate is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048 subd. (a).) First, the notice of motion was not filed in each case sought to be consolidated. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a)(1)(C).) Second, Agco Corporation failed to file memorandums, declarations, and other supporting papers in the lowest numbered case. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a)(2)(A).)

If no hearing is requested, this tentative ruling is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.

Case management conference:

Parties are DIRECTED TO APPEAR.

4 of 4

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share