What is a Petition for Coordination?

“When civil actions sharing a common question of fact or law are pending in different courts, a petition for coordination may be submitted to the Chairperson of the Judicial Council, by the presiding judge of any such court, or by any party to one of the actions after obtaining permission from the presiding judge, or by all of the parties plaintiff or defendant in any such action.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 404.)

Legal Standard

“Coordination of civil actions sharing a common question of fact or law is appropriate if one judge hearing all of the actions for all purposes in a selected site or sites will promote the ends of justice taking into account whether the common question of fact or law is predominating and significant to the litigation; the convenience of parties, witnesses, and counsel; the relative development of the actions and the work product of counsel; the efficient utilization of judicial facilities and manpower; the calendar of the courts; the disadvantages of duplicative and inconsistent rulings, orders, or judgments; and, the likelihood of settlement of the actions without further litigation should coordination be denied.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 404.1; McGhan Med. Corp. v. Super. Ct. (Hogan) (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 804, 812.)

“A petition for coordination, or a motion for permission to submit a petition, shall be supported by a declaration stating facts showing that the actions are complex, as defined by the Judicial Council and that the actions meet the standards specified in Section 404.1.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 404.)

A “complex” case is an action that requires “exceptional judicial management to avoid placing unnecessary burdens on the court or the litigants and to expedite the case, keep costs reasonable, and promote effective decision making by the court, the parties and counsel.” (First State Ins. Co. v. Super. Ct. (Jalisco Corp., Inc.) (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 324, 332.) In deciding whether an action is a complex case, the court must consider, among other things, whether the action is likely to involve:

  1. Numerous pretrial motions raising difficult or novel legal issues that will be time-consuming to resolve;
  2. Management of a large number of witnesses or a substantial amount of documentary evidence;
  3. Management of a large number of separately represented parties;
  4. Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court; or
  5. Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision.

(Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.400(b).)

The court must consider all of the factors set forth in rule 3.400(b), but no one factor is necessarily determinative by its presence or absence. (Ford Motor Warranty Cases (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 626, 641.)

Procedure

“On receipt of a petition for coordination, the Chairperson of the Judicial Council may assign a judge to determine whether the actions are complex, and if so, whether coordination of the actions is appropriate, or the Chairperson of the Judicial Council may authorize the presiding judge of a court to assign the matter to judicial officers of the court to make the determination in the same manner as assignments are made in other civil cases.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 404.)

Useful Rulings on Petition for Coordination

Recent Rulings on Petition for Coordination

1-25 of 10000 results

PRICE VS THE CITY OF ANAHEIM

As an initial matter, the City agrees that it will not enforce AMC § 4.05.100.0115, which requires immediate warrantless access to a STR; will not issue citations for failure to grant immediate access pending a trial in this case, pursuant to AMC § 4.05.140.020.0201(6); and will offer the City Council amendments to remove language providing for the issuance of citations for failure to grant immediate access.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2030

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY VS. SANTA ANA RV STORAGE, L.P.

Given that CCP § 1263.510 mandates compensation for lost goodwill for the owner of a business conducted on the property taken, the Court will not preclude such recovery in the absence of express exclusionary language in the lease. That being said, it is not clear that SARVS necessarily will be eligible for such compensation.

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2026

T-12 THREE, LLC VS. TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

Specifically, MaryJane is a plaintiff as to the First Cause of Action for Breach of Contract, the Second Cause of Action for Negligence, the Fourth Cause of Action for Breach of Express Warranty, and the Fifth Cause of Action for Breach of Implied Warranties. (Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the Third Cause of Action for Indemnity following the filing of Turner’s Motion.)

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2026

VELAZQUEZ VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC.

No appearance is required at the hearing set for 6/21/19.

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2021

THE CITIES OF DUARTE VS STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD AND CITY OF GARDENA VS REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD

A peremptory writ of administrative mandamus shall issue under the seal of this Court, remanding the matter to Respondents and commanding Respondents to set aside the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System within the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles County, except for discharges originating from the City of Long Beach MS4, Order No. R4-2012-0175, NPDES No. CAS004001, as amended on June 16, 2015 by State Board Order WQ 2015-0075. 2.

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2021

OSCAR ESCOBEDO, ET AL. VS EMANATE HEALTH MEDICAL CENTER , ET AL.

J of the Pomona Courthouse, for all purposes except trial. Department 1 hereby delegates to the Independent Calendar Court the authority to assign the case for trial to that Independent Calendar Court. Any pending motions or hearings, including trial and status conferences, will be reset, continued or vacated at the direction of the newly assigned Independent Calendar court.Plaintiff shall give notice.

  • Hearing

    Nov 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

VEJ POMONA 8, LP, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ET AL. VS FRANK CURTIN, ET AL.

Because relief sought exceeds amount of prayer of complaint, request for attorney fees also does not comply with Local Rule 3.214’s fee schedule. Cross-Complainant Accredited Surety and Casualty Company, Inc.’s application for default judgment is DENIED without prejudice for the following reasons: · Request for attorney fees does not comply with Local Rule 3.214’s fee schedule.

  • Hearing

    Nov 09, 2020

CATHAY BANK VS ACE HARDWARE CORPORATION

Janovsky testified that he was mainly concerned with whether Defendant Ace was going to get the racks for its promotion and was merely thinking of things from the perspective of a merchant and not from a legal perspective. (Id. at ¶ 4, Ex. C.) Mr. Janovsky also testified that he was not aware that the request by Defendant JMI for the name change could have affected the receivership. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2020

CHANGLIANG DAI VS THOMAS CHEN, ET AL.

Chen advised Plaintiff that he had been operating a successful business, Tissuesco Group (“Tissuesco”), for many years and could assist Plaintiff to open a business and obtain a visa. On or around March 24, 2018, the parties signed a contract, in which Plaintiff agreed to invest $120,000.00 to Tissuesco and, in return, Tissuesco would open, operate and manage a company for Plaintiff and assist Plaintiff in applying for an L-1 visa.

  • Hearing

    Nov 02, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

MANUEL ALEJANDRE VS CAL-VILLA ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

(Rule 3.1312) The case management conference scheduled for September 25, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 11B will remain. Ross 9/18/2020 ……………… Directions for Contesting or Arguing the Tentative Ruling: Tentative rulings for Law and Motion will be posted electronically by 1:30 p.m. the day before the hearing.

  • Hearing

    Oct 28, 2020

NATIONWIDE BANK VS WEI ZHU

Cross-Complainant’s application for default judgment is DENIED without prejudice for the following reasons: 1. Relief sought is not within amount of prayer of complaint or statement of damages. (Due Process; Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 824.). Under Code of Civil Procedure section 580(a), “[t]he relief granted to the plaintiff, if there is no answer, cannot exceed that demanded in the complaint, in the statement required by Section 425.11, or in the statement provided for by Section 425.115[.]”

  • Hearing

    Oct 27, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

IN THE MATTER OF ROBERT A. MATTHEWS

For general information regarding Judge Lund and his courtroom rules and procedures, please visit: http://www.judgerogerlund.com.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Family Law

  • Sub Type

    Conservatorship

ANGELA WATSON VS GILBERT A. CABOT

Defendants also move to strike irrelevant allegations, as well as Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees as there are no grounds for such request, and punitive damages as Plaintiff has pled no malice, oppression, or fraud. DISCUSSION As a preliminary matter, Defendants’ request for judicial notice of the December 5, 2019, Minute Order and the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JINGXUAN ZHANG VS HUMMINGBIRD NEST ENTERTAINMENT CORP

Labor Code §§ 201-203 On August 20, 2018, Plaintiff filed an Amendment to Complaint, wherein Yiping Ye (“Ye”) was substituted in for Doe 1. On March 18, 2019, Hummingbird’s answer was stricken. On March 27, 2019, Hummingbird’s default was entered. On May 9, 2019, the court granted, inter alia, Plaintiff’s ex parte application for amendment to complaint. On August 7, 2019, Ye’s default was entered. An Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to Proceed with Default Judgment is set for October 19, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

PNC EQUIPMENT FINANCE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS SANTIAGO MENDOZA MUNIZ, AN INDIVIDUAL

Muniz (20PSCV00337) _____________________________________________ Plaintiff PNC Equipment Finance, LLC’s APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT Tentative Ruling Plaintiff PNC Equipment Finance, LLC’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

CHUAN JUN LI VS QI ZHAO

Zhao (KC070595) _____________________________________________ Plaintiff Chuan Jun Li’s APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT Tentative Ruling Plaintiff Chuan Jun Li’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

ARMEN G KOJIKIAN ET AL VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO INC

The Settlement Agreement does not release claims for personal injury, property damage other than to the Class Vehicles, or claims for subrogation.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

(“Defendant”) and Does 1-25 for: Unlawful Detainer On December 5, 2019, Defendant’s default was entered; that day, a clerk’s default judgment for possession only was filed. A Case Management Conference and an Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to Proceed with Default Judgment are set for October 14, 2020. Discussion Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice. The court notes that the lease provided for a $69,804.04 security deposit.

  • Hearing

    Oct 14, 2020

RE: MTN TO VACATE ORDER OF 3/26/19 ON GROUND OF LACK OF NTC

Need petition (may be ex parte) showing good cause for allowing late election, and order. Otherwise you will need amended petition eliminating spouse’s portion and a recalculation of statutory fees. Proposed election must comply with LR 7.305. See PrC §§ 13500, 13501, 13502 2. Revised, proposed Order to correct account period. Accounting should begin as of date of death and as needed in resolution of above Notes: 1. Letters of Administration issued 11-1-19 are missing from the Court’s file.

  • Hearing

    Oct 13, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: 1ST & FNL RPT & ACCT OF ADMNTR, PET’N FOR SETTLEMENT, DISTRIBUTION FILED ON 02/04/20 BY KIM WILLIAMS NEAL

Holly Glazebrook filed a claim for $18,262.67 and James Eftin for $7,262.24. 4. Proposed Order Note: Petition at ¶ 11.a. refers to personal property; however, none has been inventoried. CLAIRE OWENS JEAN M KOHLER HOLLY GLAZEBROOK JAMES EFTING MORGAN GLAZEBROOK JAMES EFTING RILEY GLAZEBROOK STANLEY T GLAZEBROOK PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1. Appearances 2.

  • Hearing

    Oct 13, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

THE RICHARDSON 2001 TRUST

Further support for reimbursement for expenses incurred for ordinary business operations associated with services compensated by professional fees (including copying and postage costs). See Guidelines for Probate Rules - Attachments. 6.

  • Hearing

    Oct 13, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

ESTATE OF MARGARET LOUISE MCGLORY

Extension granted to 3/3/20 for Petition. MARCUS L McGLORY PETER SHELTON MARGARET LOUISE McGLORY PHYLLIS JACKSON FILED ON 09/09/19 BY DELMOS WHITLEY PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearance by Atty. Endy Ukoha-Ajike to report status as to whether funds were received from Delmos Whitley Note: Receipt of Distribution filed 3-6-2020 and signed by Ruby Striplin, attorney-in-fact for Delmos Whitley. DAVID ROWL ENDY UKOHA-AJIKE DELMOS WHITLEY VERNIS S.

  • Hearing

    Oct 13, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: FOR PROBATE OF ORIGINAL WILL, LETTERS TEST, IAEA

File a verified declaration to address petition item # 5.a.(5) or 5.a.(6) (whether decedent is survived by a child) 7. File a verified declaration to address petition Item #5.b. (whether decedent was survived by a stepchild or foster child or children who would have been adopted, but for a legal barrier) 8. Submit Order for Probate Form DE-140 ANDREA HORTON HELAN SMITH PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Weston Thompson, grandson, still must do the following: 1.

  • Hearing

    Oct 13, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

ESTATE OF MARSHA BROWN

RE: PET’N FOR PROBATE WILL & LTRS FOR TEST, W/IAEA FILED ON 02/03/20 BY MELANIE SUE LEWIS PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: Evidence of what Notice of Petition to Administer Estate was served on Helen Brown. Notice is not attached to Proof of Service filed 8-14-2020. PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: Revised, proposed order with copy of Will attached, if lost will is to be admitted.

  • Hearing

    Oct 13, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

BELINDA AGUILAR, ET AL. VS TG PROPERTIES LLC

At the direction of Department 1, this case is hereby ordered reassigned and transferred to the South Central District, Compton, the Honorable Maurice Leiter, Judge presiding in Department A, for all purposes except trial. Department 1 hereby delegates to the Independent Calendar Court the authority to assign the cause for trial to that Independent Calendar Court.

  • Hearing

    Oct 13, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 400     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.