Motion to Consolidate
34-2022-00317395-CU-PA-GDS: Ruby-Lynn Ragasa Idmilao vs. Sharif Davlatberki 07/19/2024 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 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 Judges 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 Courts 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.
Good cause appearing and based on the stipulation of the parties, the motion of Sharif Davlatberki, Tojikon, Inc. and Mixa Transportation, LLC to consolidate Ruby-Lynn Ragasa Idmilao, et al. v. Sharif Davlatberki, et al. (Case No. 34-2022-00317395), Eric Keller, et al. v. Sharif Davlatberki, et al. (Case No. 23CV000989), Nathaniel Warner, et al. v. Sharif Davlatberki, et al. (Case No. 23CV001889), and Luis Vargas Gutierrez v. Sharif Davlatberki, et al. (Case No. 23CV001747) is GRANTED.
The moving parties failed to comply with Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a)(1)(B), which requires the moving and supporting papers for a motion to consolidate to include the caption of all cases to be consolidated.
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?”
34-2022-00317395-CU-PA-GDS: Ruby-Lynn Ragasa Idmilao vs. Sharif Davlatberki 07/19/2024 Hearing on Motion to Consolidate in Department 47
and fact as the actions relate to the same motor vehicle accident. Consolidation will promote judicial efficiency and economy and avoid the risk of inconsistent verdicts. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 1048(a).)
Ruby-Lynn Ragasa Idmilao, et al. v. Sharif Davlatberki, et al. (Case No. 34-2022-00317395) 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.
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.