CA · rules
Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.524
Order assigning coordination motion judge
(a) Contents of order
An order by the Chair of the Judicial Council assigning a coordination motion judge to determine whether coordination is appropriate, or authorizing 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, must include the following:
(1) The special title and number assigned to the coordination proceeding; and
(2) The court's address or electronic service address for submitting all subsequent documents to be considered by the coordination motion judge.
(b) Service of order
The petitioner must serve the order described in (a) on each party appearing in an included action and send it to each court in which an included action is pending with directions to the clerk to file the order in the included action.
History
(Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2016; adopted as part of unlettered subd effective January 1, 1974; previously amended and lettered subd (a) effective January 1, 2005.) (Subd (b) amended and lettered effective January 1, 2005; adopted as part of unlettered subd effective January 1, 1974.) Rule 3.524 amended effective January 1, 2016; adopted as rule 1524 effective January 1, 1974; previously amended effective January 1, 2005; previously renumbered as rule 3.524 effective January 1, 2007.
Provenance
- Source
- courts.ca.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-09-14
- Edition
- 2026-09-14
- Content hash
6ffb04192e9ed380566456df0bc425ad2f66d0d2a28fbd2e9478396a88946aed
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.