DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
RG21112710·alameda·Civil·Civil
Hearing about 2 months agoCase Management Conference vacated; matter reassigned to Dept 518 for jury trial; Pre-Trial Conference set

Moore VS A.H.Voss Company

Case Management Conference

Hearing date
Jul 9, 2026
Department
18
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Jul 14, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffMoore
DefendantA.H.Voss Company

Ruling

RG21112710: Moore VS A.H.Voss Company 07/09/2026 Case Management Conference in Department 18

Tentative Ruling - 07/08/2026 Patrick McKinney

ORDER RE: CASE MANAGEMENT

The Court has ordered the following after review of the case.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that by direction of the Presiding Judge, the above matter has been reassigned for JURY TRIAL to the Hon. Mark Fickes, Department 518, located at the Hayward Hall of Justice, 24405 Amador Street, Hayward, CA 94544. This matter remains assigned to Department 18 for case management.

Pre-Trial Conference is scheduled for 07/14/2026 at 02:30 PM in Department 518 at Hayward Hall of Justice.

The Case Management Conference scheduled for 07/09/2026 is vacated.

Designated Defense Counsel (Defendant) must forthwith serve a copy of this order on all counsel of record and self-represented parties. The Court orders counsel to obtain a copy of this order from the eCourt portal.

CONTESTING THE TENTATIVE CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER: If the parties do not contest the Tentative Case Management Order, it will be adopted. Any party wishing to contest the tentative case management order must notify the court by email at Dept18@alameda.courts.ca.gov, and notify all opposing counsel or unrepresented parties by 4pm the day before the hearing.

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