DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
30-2024-01414209·orange·Civil·Personal Injury
Hearing about 2 months agoNo written tentative ruling

Hernandez vs. Anaheim Arena Management LLC

Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Summary Adjudication

Hearing date
Jul 13, 2026
Department
N15
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Motion for Summary Judgment rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffHernandez
DefendantAnaheim Arena Management LLC

Ruling

amendments are limited to the issues addressed in the court’s ruling and generally may not include amendments to causes of action not addressed in the ruling or the addition of new causes of action. (See Community Water Coalition v. Santa Cruz County Local Agency Formation Com. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1317, 1329 [“It is the rule that when a trial court sustains a demurrer with leave to amend, the scope of the grant of leave is ordinarily a limited one. It gives the pleader an opportunity to cure the defects in the particular causes of action to which the demurrer was sustained, but that is all.”].)

Defendant shall give notice of these rulings.

9 Hernandez vs. Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Summary Anaheim Arena Adjudication Management LLC There is no written tentative ruling on this matter. The court will hear oral argument from the parties 30-2024- or their counsel. 01414209

10 Richardson vs. FCA Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs US LLC Plaintiff Wayne Patrick Richardson’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees, Costs, and Expenses is GRANTED 30-2023- in part and DENIED in part. 01345674 Defendant FCA US LLC is ORDERED to pay to Plaintiff Wayne Patrick Richardson reasonable attorney’s fees in the amount of $36,626.50 and costs in the amount of $6,037.53 within 30 days of service of the notice of ruling.

Pending Motion

Plaintiff Wayne Patrick Richardson moves for an award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $41,918 and costs in the amount of $6,037.53 from Defendant FCA US LLC, pursuant to the Song- Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Song-Beverly Act), Civil Code section 1790, et seq.

Standard for Motion for Attorney’s Fees

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