NOTICE: To request limited oral argument on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Court at (916) 874-5487 (Department 47) by 4:00 p.m. the court day before this hearing and advise opposing counsel. If no call is made, the tentative ruling becomes the order of the court. Local Rule 2.02(D). Department 47 Superior Court of California 720 Ninth Street Roland L. Candee, Judge S. Jacobs/P. Banks, Clerk None, Bailiff Wednesday, October 18, 2006, 9:30 AM Item 1 04AS02960 WAYNE GUINN, ET AL VS. C M C STEEL FABRICATORS, INC., ET AL Nature of Proceeding: Motion To Consolidate Filed By: Plaintiffs in Fru-Construction v. CMC Steel Fabricators, Inc. move to consolidate Fru- Construction v. CMC, No. 06AS01623 with Guinn v. CMC Steel Fabricators, No. 04AS02960 for all purposes including trial. For the reasons set forth below, the parties are directed to appear. Moving plaintiffs assert that both cases arise from the same industrial accident in which Wayne Guinn sustained injury. The Guinn action is an action for damages brought by the injured plaintiff against CMC Steel Fabricators a contractor on the job site. The other action is an action for indemnification against CMC Steel Fabricators brought by plaintiff Guinn's employer Fru-Construction and its worker's compensation carrier Zurich Insurance of America to recoup among other things worker's compensation payments made to plaintiff Guinn. Defendant CMC Fabricators opposes consolidation on the ground that the Guinn case has settled and that the parties are currently attempting to finalize the settlement documents. In the alternative, defendant CMC seeks a 30 day continuance of this motion to allow for completion of the settlement process. The court notes that the Guinn case has a trial date of October 23 The parties are directed to appear and advise the court of the status of the proposed settlement and its impact on the motion to consolidate. Item 2 04AS04976 WAYNE Z. RAWLINGS VS. CITY OF SACRAMENTO, ET AL Nature of Proceeding: Motion To Continue Trial Filed By: Defendant Sacramento Regional Transit District's motion to continue trial and settlement conference currently set for October 18 and November 14, 2006, respectively, is GRANTED. This matter shall be set on the November 20, 2006 trial setting calendar to be heard at 10:00 a.m. in Department 47. The court finds good cause to continue in light of the fact that defendant has been The court finds good cause to continue in light of the fact that defendant has been unable to finalize trial preparations, complete discovery and designate experts. The reason being that plaintiff in pro per's address on file with the court is no longer valid. As a consequence, all attempts to serve plaintiff throught that address have failed. If an attorney or party changes address during the course of the litigation, it is his or her duty to update the address with the court. (CRC 385). Item 3 06AS00387 GARY ERVIN VS. FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, ET AL. Nature of Proceeding: Motion To Change Venue Filed By: Plaintiff again moves to change venue of this action to the Superior Court for the City and County of San Francisco on the ground that he cannot obtain a fair trial in Sacramento County. For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff's motion to change venue is DENIED. Plaintiff previously made a venue motion in July of 2006. That motion was denied by Presiding Judge Candee in an order dated July 7, 2006. In his new motion, plaintiff has alleged certain new facts regarding a state proceeding in the early 1980s in which retired Judge Gunther and Judge Loren McMaster were alleged to have been involved as counsel. While both of these judges have recused themselves and the current matter is now assigned to the Honorable Patricia Esgro for all law and motion purposes, plaintiff maintains he is not able to obtain a fair trial in Sacramento. Defendants oppose the motion to change venue on the ground that it lacks merit, it is an improper renewal of a previous venue motion which was denied in July and that it was filed for purposes of delay. Defendants further argue that plaintiff should be deemed a vexatious litigant for purposes of this case as he has repeatedly filed meritless motions.(See CCP 391(b)(3) and 391.7(a)). The court finds that the instant motion should be denied. Plaintiff has not established that he cannot obtain a fair trial in Sacramento. Defendants' request, contained in its opposition papers, to have plaintiff declared a vexatious litigant is also denied. Such a request, if appropriate, should be made in a properly noticed motion with supporting documentation. Item 4 06AS01056 CHRISTINE POBANZ-STELTER VS DANIEL A. EDWARDS Nature of Proceeding: Motion To Consolidate Filed By: Good cause appearing, and no opposition having been filed plaintiff State Compensation Insurance Fund's motion to consolidate State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Sarah Edwards, No. 06AS01100 with Pobanz-Stelter v. Edwards, No. 06AS01056 for all purposes including trial is GRANTED. In accordance with the court's practice, the most recent case, State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Sarah Edwards, No. 06AS01100, shall be the lead case. The court finds good cause to consolidate as both cases arise from the same accident and both involve the same facts, witnesses and evidence. In the Pobanz-Stelter action, and both involve the same facts, witnesses and evidence. In the Pobanz-Stelter action, plaintiff seeks damages from the alleged torfeasor. In the State Compensation Insurance Fund action, plaintiff seeks to recoup worker's compensation benefits paid to Pobanz-Stelter from the alleged tortfeasor. Item 5 03AM11555 LAWRENCE WILLIAMS VS. ESLEY SIMMONS Nature of Proceeding: Miscellaneous Motion Filed By: Plaintiff, a state prisoner appearing in pro per, seeks an order of this court providing for his transporation from Centinela State Prison in Imperial California to this court to appear at trial on November 27, 2006. The court will take this matter under submission and issue a ruling at a later date.