Vincent Lara vs. Alexis Paige Lewis

34-2023-00336808-CU-FR-GDS: Vincent Lara vs. Alexis Paige Lewis 09/29/2023 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 ZoomGov ID is: 16173813009. 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 modifications to Local Rule 1.06 for motions pending before the Presiding Judge. All noticed motions in the Presiding Judge’s Department shall include the following information in the notice: “Local Rule 1.06 (A) is modified such that tentative rulings will be issued two days prior to the hearing date and the party requesting argument is required to provide notice to the Court and counsel of that request by noon the following day.” (Additional info available on the Court’s website at: https://saccourt.ca.gov/civil/presiding-judge-info.aspx.) Counsel for moving party shall contact all other parties and advise them of the modifications to the tentative ruling system for this motion.

The motion of Defendant Alexis Lewis (“Lewis”) to consolidate Vincent Lara, et al. v. Alexis Paige Lewis (Case No. 34-2023-00336808) and Alexis Lewis v. Nationwide Life and Annuity Insurance Company, et al. (Case No. 23CV000895) is unopposed but DROPPED due to defective notice and service.

The requirements for a motion to consolidate are set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 3.350. The motion must be filed in the lowest numbered case along with a proof of service demonstrating the motion was served on all attorneys of record and all non-represented parties in all cases sought to be consolidated. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a)(2).) The notice of motion must be filed in all cases to be consolidated, must contain the caption of those cases, and must identify the parties in each case, those who have appeared, and their respective attorneys of record. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a).) The use of the word “must” in this rule indicates these requirements are mandatory. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1.5(a)(1).)

Here, there is no corresponding proof of service with Lewis’ motion. While Plaintiffs Vincent Lara and Joseph Lara have filed an opposition to the motion, Nationwide Life and Annuity Insurance Company (“Nationwide”) has not filed any opposition or response. Additionally, Lewis has failed to file a copy of the notice in the case Alexis Lewis v. Nationwide Life and Annuity Insurance Company, et al. (Case No. 23CV000895), as required. Thus, there is no indication that Nationwide has otherwise been provided with service or notice of the instant motion to consolidate.

34-2023-00336808-CU-FR-GDS: Vincent Lara vs. Alexis Paige Lewis 09/29/2023 Hearing on Motion to Consolidate in Department 47

Defective notice deprives the court of jurisdiction. (Lee v. Placer Title Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 503.) There is no evidence that the non-moving parties waived the requirements for notice or the defect in service. The Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the motion. The motion is DROPPED for defective notice and service.

Lastly, the Court notes that Lewis has filed Decedent Alan Lara’s death certificate, which includes certain unredacted identifying information such as his social security number, all of which is publicly viewable. If Lewis desires to seal this private information, they shall file a motion to seal in the appropriate law and motion department (Department 54).

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