DecisionDepot
California Legal Research
All cases
1·orange·Civil·Automotive / Consumer Warranty
DENIED

Heredia vs. American Honda Motor CO., Inc.

Motion to Strike

Hearing date
May 13, 2026
Department
N16
Prevailing
Defendant

Motion type

Motion to Strike

Parties

PlaintiffYazmin Heredia
PlaintiffJulio Heredia
DefendantAmerican Honda Motor, Inc.

Ruling

Superior Court of the State of California County of Orange TENTATIVE RULINGS FOR DEPARTMENT N16

HON. Donald F. Gaffney

Counsel and Parties Please Note: Law and Motion in Department N16 is heard on Wednesdays at 9:00 a.m.

Date: May 13, 2026

Tentative Rulings will be posted on the Internet on the day before the hearing by 5:00 p.m. [or earlier] whenever possible. To submit on the tentative ruling, please contact the clerk at (657) 622-5616, after contacting opposing party/counsel. Prevailing party shall give notice of the Ruling and prepare the Order/Judgment for the Court’s signature if required.

NOTE: After posting of tentative rulings, the Court will not take the motion off calendar and will grant a continuance of the motion only upon stipulation of all affected parties.

If no appearances are made on the calendared motion date, then oral argument will be deemed to have been waived and the tentative ruling will become the Court’s final ruling.

# Case Name Tentative 1 Heredia vs. TENTATIVE RULING: American Honda Motor Motion to Strike CO., Inc. Defendant American Honda Motor, Inc., moves to strike portions of the Complaint of Plaintiffs Yazmin Heredia and Julio Heredia). The motion is DENIED as moot.

The motion to strike is rendered moot by this court’s granting judgment on the pleadings. (See ROA # 71.)

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

2 Neumann vs. TENTATIVE RULING: Mull For the reasons set forth below, the hearing on Defendant JM Welding Products, LLC’s demurrer and motion to strike the third amended complaint by Plaintiff Richard Warren Neumann Jr., is CONTINUED to August 19, 2026.

Defendant served the demurrer and motion to strike on Plaintiff by electronic means on February 16, 2026. Plaintiff, however, is a self-

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…

Extracted by Gemini Flash from the ruling text. Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Powered by Gemini Flash Lite. Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Source

Share