Rule 3.500.Transfer and consolidation of noncomplex common-issue actions filed in different courts

Division 4. Parties and Actions · Chapter 6. Coordination of Noncomplex Actions · Last amended 2016 · Last verified July 29, 2026

In one sentenceRule 3.500 governs motions under Code of Civil Procedure section 403 to transfer and consolidate noncomplex cases sharing a common issue of fact or law that were filed in different courts, spelling out the good-faith conferral step, the required showing, and the standards a court applies before ordering a transfer.

Full Text of Rule 3.500

Text sizeJump to: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h)

(a) Application This rule applies when a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 403 is filed requesting transfer and consolidation of noncomplex cases involving a common issue of fact or law filed in different courts. (Subd (a) amended and lettered effective January 1, 2007; adopted as unlettered subd.)

(b) Preliminary step A party that intends to file a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 403 must first make a good-faith effort to obtain agreement of all parties to each case to the proposed transfer and consolidation. (Subd (b) amended and relettered effective January 1, 2007; adopted as subd (a).)

(c) Motion and hearing A motion to transfer an action under Code of Civil Procedure section 403 must conform to the requirements generally applicable to motions, and must be supported by a declaration stating facts showing that:

(1) The actions are not complex;

(2) The moving party has made a good-faith effort to obtain agreement to the transfer and consolidation from all parties to the actions; and

(3) The moving party has notified all parties of their obligation to disclose to the court any information they may have concerning any other motions requesting transfer of any case that would be affected by the granting of the motion before the court. (Subd (c) amended and relettered effective January 1, 2007; adopted as subd (b).)

(d) Findings and order If the court orders that the case or cases be transferred from another court, the order must specify the reasons supporting a finding that the transfer will promote the ends of justice, with reference to the following standards:

(1) The actions are not complex;

(2) Whether the common question of fact or law is predominating and significant to the litigation;

(3) The convenience of the parties, witnesses, and counsel;

(4) The relative development of the actions and the work product of counsel;

(5) The efficient utilization of judicial facilities and staff resources;

(6) The calendar of the courts;

(7) The disadvantages of duplicative and inconsistent rulings, orders, or judgments; and

(8) The likelihood of settlement of the actions without further litigation should coordination be denied. (Subd (d) amended and relettered effective January 1, 2007; adopted as subd (c).)

(e) Moving party to provide copies of order If the court orders that the case or cases be transferred from another court, the moving party must promptly serve the order on all parties to each case and send it to the Judicial Council and to the presiding judge of the court from which each case is to be transferred. (Subd (e) amended and relettered effective January 1, 2007; adopted as subd (d).)

(f) Moving party to take necessary action to complete transfer and consolidation If the court orders a case or cases transferred, the moving party must promptly take all appropriate action necessary to assure that the transfer takes place and that proceedings are initiated in the other court or courts to complete consolidation with the case pending in that court. (Subd (f) amended and relettered effective January 1, 2007; adopted as subd (e).)

(g) Conflicting orders The Judicial Council’s coordination staff must review all transfer orders submitted under (e) and must promptly confer with the presiding judges of any courts that have issued conflicting orders under Code of Civil Procedure section 403. The presiding judges of those courts must confer with each other and with the judges who have issued the orders to the extent necessary to resolve the conflict. If it is determined that any party to a case has failed to disclose information concerning pending motions, the court may, after a duly noticed hearing, find that the party’s failure to disclose is an unlawful interference with the processes of the court. (Subd (g) amended effective January 1, 2016; adopted as subd (f); previously amended and relettered as subd (g) effective January 1, 2007.)

(h) Alternative disposition of motion If after considering the motion the judge determines that the action or actions pending in another court should not be transferred to the judge’s court but instead all the actions that are subject to the motion to transfer should be transferred and consolidated in another court, the judge may order the parties to prepare, serve, and file a motion to have the actions transferred to the appropriate court. (Subd (h) amended and relettered effective January 1, 2007; adopted as subd (g).)

End

Plain-English Summary

When two noncomplex cases sharing a common question end up filed in different courts, litigating them separately wastes effort on both sides. Rule 3.500 sets up the process for fixing that under Code of Civil Procedure section 403. Before filing a motion to transfer and consolidate, the moving party first has to make a good-faith effort to get every party in every affected case to agree to the plan. Only after that fails does the motion itself go forward, supported by a declaration establishing that the cases are not complex, that the good-faith effort happened, and that every party has been told to disclose any other pending motions that might overlap with this one.

A court granting transfer cannot just say so — it has to explain why, measured against a list of standards: whether the common question predominates and matters to the litigation, the convenience of everyone involved, how far each case has already progressed, efficient use of court resources, court calendars, the risk of conflicting rulings, and the odds that coordination will lead to settlement. Once an order issues, the moving party has to serve it on every party, send it to the Judicial Council and the presiding judge of the losing court, and follow through on the practical steps needed to complete the transfer. If two courts end up issuing conflicting transfer orders, the Judicial Council's coordination staff steps in to help the presiding judges sort it out — and a party caught withholding information about a competing motion can face a finding that it interfered with the court's processes.

Frequently Asked Questions

What has to happen before I can file a motion to transfer and consolidate noncomplex cases?

Rule 3.500(b) requires a good-faith effort to obtain agreement from every party in every affected case before the motion to transfer under Code of Civil Procedure section 403 can be filed.

What factors does the court weigh in deciding whether to order the transfer?

Rule 3.500(d) lists whether the common issue predominates, convenience to the parties and witnesses, how developed each case is, efficient use of court resources, court calendars, the risk of inconsistent rulings, and the likelihood coordination leads to settlement.

Does Rule 3.500 apply to complex cases?

No. Rule 3.500 is limited to noncomplex actions; complex cases follow the coordination procedures in rule 3.501 and the rules that follow it instead.

What happens if two courts issue conflicting transfer orders?

The Judicial Council's coordination staff reviews the orders and confers with the presiding judges involved, who then work with each other to resolve the conflict.

Amendment History

Rule 3.500 amended effective January 1, 2016; adopted as rule 1500 effective September 21, 1996; previously amended and renumbered as rule 3.500 effective January 1, 2007.

Source & verification. Rule text is reproduced verbatim from the Judicial Council of California. Adopted by the Judicial Council of California. Last verified July 29, 2026. · Official source

Also known as: CCP 403 transfer and consolidation motionrule 3.500 noncomplex coordinationgood faith effort before motion to transfer california