This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 License.

TR - Motion to transfer - Granted This Tentative Ruling is issued by Judge Bonnie Lewman Sabraw The Motion of Defendants Independent Citizens Oversight Committee, et al. ("Defendants") For Transfer of the action entitled California Family Bioethics Council, LLC v. California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 05AS02927 ("Sacramento Action"), to this Court for coordination with the instant action, is GRANTED. 1. The Court finds that coordination of the two actions, both challenging Proposition 71 (the California Stem Cell Research and Cures Act) is appropriate under Code of Civil Procedure §403, and that the transfer of the Sacramento Action will promote the ends of justice in that (1) Neither the instant action nor the Sacramento Action is a complex action as defined under Rule of Court 1800. (2) Common questions of law and fact predominate and are significant to the litigation of both actions, including, inter alia, the constitutionality and validity of Proposition 71; the constitutionality of the entities formed thereunder, who are among the named Defendants to these actions; the lawfulness of the financing and operations of said entities; and the validity of the actions taken by such entities, including, but not limited to, the authorizing or issuance of bonds and the use of public or private funds (3) It is to the convenience of the two plaintiffs, the six defendants, and their counsel in the instant action, as well as the three named defendants and their counsel in the Sacramento Action, that the matter be coordinated in this Court. The remaining party, the plaintiff in the Sacramento Action, and its counsel have presented no evidence that the transfer of the matter to Alameda County would be highly inconvenient to them. Plaintiff's counsel in the Sacramento action is located in Citrus Heights, California. Also, as it is unlikely that witnesses will be required to present testimony in court on these matters, convenience of witnesses is not relevant. (4) Since both actions are in early stages, with no decisions having been made by either Court in either action, the transfer of the Sacramento Action will not affect the development of the actions. The one matter currently on file in the Sacramento Action, an application for order approving service by publication, may be determined on the papers already submitted by counsel for Plaintiff in that action once it has been transferred to this Court. (5) Since the instant action has already been assigned to a single judge for all purposes, and since there are issues common to both actions, transfer of the Sacramento Action for coordination with the instant action will further the efficient utilization of judicial facilities and resources. (6) Similarly, the transfer of the Sacramento Action for coordination with the instant action will, by creating efficiencies, lessen the burden on the calendar of the Superior Court as a whole. (7) If the actions are not coordinated, there is a substantial risk of inconsistent rulings, orders, or judgments due to overlapping legal and factual issues in the two actions, particularly those set forth at point (2), supra. (8) Transfer of the Sacramento Action is unlikely to affect settlement. Based on the above findings, the Sacramento Action shall be transferred to Department 512 of this Court for coordination with the instant action. The address of the Court is Hayward Hall of Justice, 24405 Amador Street, Hayward, CA 94544. 2. Further, the Court orders that following the transfer, the two actions shall be consolidated pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 865. Government Code section 17700 provides that challenges to determine the validity of the bonds, warrants, contracts, obligations, or evidences of indebtedness of the State or a state agency are to be brought as a validation action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 860 et seq. A primary policy behind validation procedures is to limit the extent to which delay due to litigation may impair a public agency's ability to operate financially. This objective is met in part by assuring a speedy determination of the validity of financial transactions and of challenges that may affect the marketability of the public agency's bonds-including constitutional challenges to the financing. (See Friedland v. City of Long Beach (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 835, 842-43, 846-47.) The Sacramento Action has been brought as a validation action. This action challenges inter alia, the validity of the California Stem Cell Research and Cures Finance Committee's ("the Finance Committee") May 9, 2005 resolutions pursuant to Proposition 71 and the California Stem Cell Research and Cures Bond Act ("Stem Cell Bond Act"). These resolutions authorize the issuance, sale and repayment of State bonds and other financial instruments, and include provisions authorizing the Finance Committee to obtain loans from the State's Pooled Money Investment Account and General Fund, for the purpose of funding for the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine ("Institute of Regenerative Medicine"). The instant case ("Alameda Action"), which was filed before the May 9, 2005 bond resolutions were approved by the Finance Committee, challenges the validity of the "drawings of money from the State Treasury for the purpose or benefit of the ICOC", i.e., the Independent Citizens' Oversight Committee, which was sued as the governing body of the Institute of Regenerative Medicine. (Alameda Action Complaint, 11.) Because no financial actions had been taken by the ICOC or the Finance Committee at that point, Plaintiff in the Alameda Action sought injunctive relief prohibiting the release of State funds to the ICOC or for its operations (i.e., the operation of the Institute for Regenerative Medicine) and prohibiting the issuance of any bonds pursuant to the Stem Cell Bond Act. (See Alameda Action Complaint, Prayer for Relief at C and D.) Since such financing has now been authorized, the Alameda Action, although not brought as a validation action pursuant to §860 et seq. at the time it was filed, must now be treated as one for purposes of consolidation. Essentially, while the Alameda Action originally sought to stop various financial transactions under Proposition 71 from taking place, those transactions now have taken place, and the Alameda Action has ripened into a "pending [action] concerning similar contests which may be brought under [the validation procedures]" and so must be consolidated with the Sacramento Action. (C.C.P. §865; see Committee for Resp. Planning v. City of Indian Wells (1990) 225 CalApp3d 191, 196 (validation statutes require consolidation of all challenges to a particular governmental action). 3. Defendants shall take all steps to comply with Rule of Court Rule 1500(d) and (e) within five court days from the date of this Order. 4. The Case Management Conference for this action, currently set for August 8, 2005, is continued until August 25, 2005, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 512, and shall be for the consolidated action. Telephonic appearances are permissible. Arrangements for telephonic appearances should be made by contacting the courtroom clerk at 510-670-6312 Top of Form Bottom of Form

superceded instructions

It's now 3:22 pm, on Wednesday, August 3, 2005.

According to a well-placed source at the Hayward Hall of Justice in Alameda County, California, Judge Bonnie Lewman Sabraw, presiding over Department 512 in the Civil Division of the Alameda County Superior Court, will issue a "tentative ruling" on California Attorney General Bill Lockyer's motion to consolidate in that court two separate lawsuits being brought against the Independent Citizens' Oversight Committee authorized by the passage of Proposition 71 last November to invest $3 billion in bond money (to be paid back with at least $6 billion in taxes from Californians) in embryonic stem cell research in the next few minutes.

When she does, you can access it through these steps:

Go to the Alameda County Superior Court web site by clicking here.

Click where it says "DomainWeb: Access to General Civil, Family Law, and Probate Cases."

Click where it says "Case Summary," either at the top or in the body of the page.

Enter the case number, which is: "HG05206766."

Hit the "Submit" button.

Scroll down on the left to where it says: "Tentative Rulings."

Wait for the tentative ruling.

the Attorney General of California wants to consolidate two lawsuits against the $3 billion embryonic stem cell research project authorized by the passage of Proposition 71