DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
24CV026788·sacramento·Civil·Civil
Hearing 6 months agoThe Case Management Conference is being continued to allow time for the Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint.

NGUYEN vs MA, et al.

Case Management Conference

Hearing date
Feb 25, 2026
Department
53
Judge
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Jun 26, 2026
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffNGUYEN
DefendantMA

Ruling

24CV026788: NGUYEN vs MA, et al. 02/25/2026 Initial Case Management Conference in Department 53

Tentative Ruling

Notices:

Please note pursuant to the Standing Order of the Sacramento Superior Court No. SSC-25- 27, as of November 10, 2025 this case is scheduled for Case Management in Dept 53.

Parties who wish to contest the tentative ruling below must: (1) request a hearing by calling the Case Management Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-5463 no later than 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the scheduled CMC, and (2) advise opposing counsel of the request. If a hearing is not requested by 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the scheduled CMC, the tentative ruling shall become the final order of the Court.

If a hearing is requested, the Court assumes that all parties will appear remotely via Zoom unless the Court orders in-person attendance. The Department 53 Zoom ID is: 161 4650 6749. To appear telephonically via Zoom, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Department 53 Zoom ID referenced above.

Court’s Tentative Ruling:

No appearance is required under the following conditions:

The Case Management Conference is being continued to allow time for the Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint.

Case Management Conference is scheduled for 06/26/2026 at 01:30 PM in Department 53 at Hall of Justice.

New Case Management Statements shall be filed by all parties no later than 15 days prior to the hearing pursuant to Local Rule 2.51.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations 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?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share