DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
34-2022-00316048-CU-OR-GDS·sacramento·Civil·Property Dispute/Easement
Hearing 6 months agoGRANTED

E & A Monroy Holdings LLC vs. HSU Family Trust

Motion to Consolidate

Hearing date
Feb 13, 2026
Department
47
Judge
Prevailing
Moving Party
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffE & A Monroy Holdings, LLC
PlaintiffSai Supermarkets
DefendantHsu Family Trust
DefendantJieun Hsu

Ruling

34-2022-00316048-CU-OR-GDS: E & A Monroy Holdings LLC vs. HSU Family Trust 02/13/2026 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.

E & A Monroy Holdings, LLC and Sai Supermarkets and Jieun Hsu, trustee of the Hsu Family Trust (collectively “Moving Parties”) filed separate motions to consolidate E & A Monroy Holdings, LLC, et al. v. Hsu Family Trust, et al., Case No. 34-2022-00316048 and Jien Hsu, as trustee of the Hsu Family Trust, et al. v. E & A Monroy Holdings, LLC, et al., Case No. 25CV010334. No party filed an opposition to either motion. As the moving parties seek identical relief, the Court consolidates the motions for joint hearing and issues the following ruling.

The motions are unopposed and GRANTED. The Court finds consolidation is appropriate because the cases involve common issues of law and fact as both actions involve disputes arising from the same easement. Consolidation will promote judicial efficiency and economy and avoid the risk of inconsistent verdicts. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 1048(a).)

E & A Monroy Holdings, LLC, et al. v. Hsu Family Trust, et al., Case No. 34-2022-00316048 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 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

34-2022-00316048-CU-OR-GDS: E & A Monroy Holdings LLC vs. HSU Family Trust 02/13/2026 Hearing on Motion to Consolidate in Department 47

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

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