| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Date |
|---|
Application for Entry of Default Judgment
SF Superior Court - Asbestos Law & Motion - CGC24277208 - May 12, 2026 Hearing date: May 12, 2026 Case number: CGC24277208 Case title: DAVID HARMS ET AL VS. SUPRO CORPORATION ET AL Case Number: | | CGC24277208 | Case Title: | | DAVID HARMS ET AL VS. SUPRO CORPORATION ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-05-12 15:30 PM | Calendar Matter: | | DEFAULT HEARING (PROVE UP) | Rulings: | | On Asbestos Law and Motion Calendar for Tuesday May 12, 2026, in Department 304.
The Application of Plaintiffs David Harms and September Faruzzi-Harms ("Plaintiffs") for Entry of Default Judgment against Defendants (1) Newton Enterprises in the amount of $2,000,000.00; and (2) Supro Corporation in the amount of $2,000,000.00 is GRANTED.
The Court has reviewed the prove-up packet including the Judicial Council Form CIV-100, the memorandum, Mr. Nevin's declaration and the attached exhibits, which are admitted. The Court finds Defendants have been served with process, failed to answer or appear and defend the action within the time allowed by law, and default has been duly entered. As such, Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief sought in the Application. The Court intends to execute the proposed judgment accompanying the application.
Any party wishing to contest the tentative ruling must email contestasbestostr@sftc.org by 4:00 p.m. on the day before the hearing and state their intention to contest. If a hearing is requested, it will be on May 12, 2026, at 9:00 a.m in Department 502. Attorneys may appear in person or remotely via zoom: Meeting ID 161 9575 2444; Passcode: 145616. | |
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
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.