(a) Recommendation by coordination motion judge If a petition for coordination is granted, the coordination motion judge must, in the order granting coordination, recommend to the Chair of the Judicial Council a particular superior court for the site of the coordination proceedings.
Rule 3.530.Site of coordination proceedings
Division 4. Parties and Actions · Chapter 7. Coordination of Complex Actions · Article 3. Petitions and Proceedings for Coordination of Complex Actions · Adopted 2005 · no amendments on record · Last verified July 29, 2026
In one sentenceRule 3.530 requires the coordination motion judge, in the order granting coordination, to recommend a particular superior court to the Chair of the Judicial Council as the site for the coordination proceedings, drawing on factors such as case locations, convenience, and the efficient use of court resources.
Full Text of Rule 3.530
(b) Factors to consider The coordination motion judge may consider any relevant factors in making a recommendation for the site of the coordination proceedings, including the following:
(1) The number of included actions in particular locations;
(2) Whether the litigation is at an advanced stage in a particular court;
(3) The efficient use of court facilities and judicial resources;
(4) The locations of witnesses and evidence;
(5) The convenience of the parties and witnesses;
(6) The parties’ principal places of business;
(7) The office locations of counsel for the parties; and
(8) The ease of travel to and availability of accommodations in particular locations.
Plain-English Summary
Coordinating several lawsuits does not automatically settle where the combined proceeding will sit. That choice belongs to the Chair of the Judicial Council, but the coordination motion judge makes the first move: Rule 3.530 requires the judge to recommend a specific superior court for the site, built right into the order granting coordination.
The rule leaves the judge’s reasoning open rather than reducing it to a formula. It lists eight factors the judge may weigh — how many of the included actions are already filed in particular locations, whether litigation in one court has progressed further than the others, the efficient use of court facilities and judicial resources, where witnesses and evidence are located, the convenience of the parties and witnesses, the parties’ principal places of business, where counsel’s offices sit, and how easy it is to travel to and find lodging near a given location.
None of these factors controls on its own, and Rule 3.526 gives a party that supports coordination but disagrees with the recommended site a way to ask for somewhere else, backed by its own facts.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who picks the court where a coordination proceeding will be based?
The Chair of the Judicial Council makes the final decision, based on the coordination motion judge’s recommendation in the order granting coordination.
What factors go into the site recommendation?
Rule 3.530(b) lists eight, including case locations, how advanced the litigation is in a particular court, efficient use of court resources, witness and evidence locations, party and witness convenience, the parties’ principal places of business, counsel’s office locations, and ease of travel and lodging.
Can a party disagree with the recommended site?
Yes. Under Rule 3.526, a party that supports coordination but not the proposed site may request a different one in its response, stating the supporting facts.
Is the site recommendation binding on the Chair of the Judicial Council?
No. It is a recommendation from the coordination motion judge; the Chair of the Judicial Council makes the final site determination.
Amendment History
Rule 3.530 renumbered effective January 1, 2007; adopted as rule 1530 effective January 1, 2005.
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: where coordination proceedings are held californiacrc 3.530 site selection factorschoosing coordination trial court locationcoordination venue california complex litigation