DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
23CV000953·napa·Civil·Civil
Hearing about 2 months agoAPPEARANCE REQUIRED

Jon Carstens v. Covidien, Inc. et al

Covidien Defendant’s Motion to Continue Trial

Hearing date
Jul 7, 2026
Department
A
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffJon Carstens
DefendantCovidien, Inc.

Ruling

In The Matter of The William R. and Gloria I. Garibaldi 26PR000103 Living Trust

AMENDED PETITION FOR ORDER DETERMINING TRUST’S TITLE TO PROPERTY [Filed 5/29/26]

TENTATIVE RULING: The matter is CONTINUED to August 11, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. B. Petitioner is directed to serve the petitioning documents on, and provide sufficient notice of the continued hearing to, Decedent Gloria I. Garibaldi’s grandchildren listed as specific gift, and remainder, beneficiaries in the Third and Fourth Amendments to the Trust, attached as Exhibit A to the Amended Petition. (See Prob. Code, §§ 851, subd. (b)(3), 17203, subd. (a)(2).)

CIVIL LAW & MOTION CALENDAR – Hon. Cynthia P. Smith, Dept. A (Historic Courthouse) at 8:30 a.m.

Jon Carstens v. Covidien, Inc. et al 23CV000953

COVIDIEN DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

APPEARANCE REQUIRED: The parties are directed to appear prepared to: (1) inform the Court whether there is any opposition to the Motion; and (2) discuss new trial dates.

The Motion was not properly noticed for hearing. June 19, 2026, and July 3, 2026, were Court holidays. Thus, June 9, 2026, was the last day for service, by electronic means, of Notice and moving papers set for hearing on July 7, 2026. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 12c, subds. (a) and (b), 1005, subd. (b), and 1010.6, subd. (a)(3)(B).)

However, requests to continue trial may be made ex parte. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(b).) The Court would, therefore, like to hear from the parties regarding the substance of the Motion.

Adam Sutton v. Eikos, Inc 23CV001258

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES, COSTS, AND CLASS REPRESENTATIVE SERVICE PAYMENT

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion for final approval of class action settlement is GRANTED. The Court will sign the proposed order. The matter is set for a Settlement Compliance Hearing on November 7, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. A

The moving party failed to include in the notice of this motion proper notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 2.9. Moving party is directed to immediately provide, by telephone call AND email, the missing notice to opposing party/ies

4

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