DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
23CV035353·alameda·Civil·Case Management
Hearing about 2 months agoCase Management and Trial Setting Order issued; multiple parties ordered to appear to address CMC statement failures and sanctions.

COOPER vs MANOLO, et al.

Case Management Conference

Hearing date
Jul 14, 2026
Department
19
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$250.00

Parties

PlaintiffCooper
DefendantManolo
DefendantBrother Motoring Group
DefendantJason Xing

Attorneys

Norman Fernandezfor Plaintiff

Ruling

23CV035353: COOPER vs MANOLO, et al. 07/14/2026 Case Management Conference in Department 19

Tentative Ruling - 06/30/2026 Joscelyn Jones

ORDER RE: CASE MANAGEMENT AND TRIAL SETTING ORDER WITH NOTICE

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

Plaintiff attorney Norman Fernandez is ordered to appear by Zoom for the setting of a 2027 court trial and related hearing dates. No jury fees were posted by the date of the ICMC. See CCP 631. The complaint was filed on 6/6/2023. No timely CMC statement was filed by Plaintiff for the 7/14/2026 CMC in accordance with CRC 3.725. Failure to file a timely CMC statement in accordance with CRC 3.725 may be a basis for the imposition of monetary sanctions.

Defendant Brother Motoring Group is ordered to appear by Zoom to report on the retention of an attorney to represent the business entity. The law does not permit a business entity to appear in effect, in pro per. No timely CMC statement was filed by Plaintiff for the 7/14/2026 CMC in accordance with CRC 3.725. Failure to file a timely CMC statement in accordance with CRC 3.725 may be a basis for the imposition of monetary sanctions.

Defendant Jason Xing is ordered to appear in person in dept. 19 TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS of $250.00 are not imposed for failure to appear at the 3/11/2025 CMC. No timely CMC statement was filed by Defendant Zing for the 7/14/2026 CMC in accordance with CRC 3.725. Failure to file a timely CMC statement in accordance with CRC 3.725 may be a basis for the imposition of monetary sanctions.

THIS ORDER TO APPEAR IN PERSON IN DEPT. 19 OVERRIDES THE STANDING ORDER THAT PERMITS REMOTE APPEARANCE BY ZOOM.

RULES FOR CONTESTING THIS TENTATIVE ORDER If a party wishes to contest this Tentative Case Management Order, they must indicate on-line and by emails to Department 19 and all other counsel by 11 a.m. on July 14, 2026. The matter will then be set for an in-person or on-line conference at 3:00 p.m. on either July 14, 2026, or an alternate date. If no party requests such a hearing, the Tentative Order will become final. Dept19@alameda.courts.ca.gov

Unless ordered otherwise, remote appearances by Zoom are the default for all law & motion, case management and compliance hearings in Dept.

19. Remote appearance requires an oncamera appearance by all counsel and/or parties. Every counsel and/or party who appear remotely must have a sufficient WiFi connection for substantial visual and audio connectivity with the Court. Telephone connectivity does not constitute appearance.

The Zoom link for remote appearance in Dept. 19 is: Join ZoomGov Meeting 23CV035353: COOPER vs MANOLO, et al. 07/14/2026 Case Management Conference in Department 19 https://alameda-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16079455282 Meeting ID: 160 7945 5282

Posting of this Zoom link for authorized remote appearance DOES NOT PERMIT REMOTE APPEARANCE BY ZOOM TO COUNSEL AND/OR PARTY WHO HAVE BEEN ORDERED TO APPEAR IN PERSON IN DEPT.

19.

When a MANDATORY in person court appearance is ordered, reliance on this Zoom link information will not be a justification, meritorious argument or good cause excuse for not appearing in person in Dept.

19. An entry in the eCourt Portal of a Contest to this tentative case management order DOES NOT PERMIT ANY COUNSEL TO APPEAR REMOTELY BEFORE THE COURT VIA ZOOM.

Clerk is directed to serve copies of this order, with proof of service, to counsel and to selfrepresented parties of record. The Court orders counsel to obtain a copy of this order from the eCourt portal.

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