DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25CV157993·alameda·Civil·Product Liability
Hearing about 2 months agoDENIED

REIKES, et al. vs BLOCK DRUG COMPANY, INC., et al.

Ex Parte Application to advance the hearing date of J&J Defendants’ MSA

Hearing date
Jul 16, 2026
Department
18
Prevailing
Opposing Party

Motion type

Browse all Ex Parte Application rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffREIKES
DefendantBLOCK DRUG COMPANY, INC.
DefendantJohnson & Johnson
DefendantPecos River Talc LLC

Ruling

25CV157993: REIKES, et al. vs BLOCK DRUG COMPANY, INC., et al. 07/16/2026 Hearing on Ex Parte Application to advance the hearing date of J&J Defendants’ MSA from September 3, 2026 to a date on or before August 27, 2026 CRS# A- 157993-001 in Department 18

Tentative Ruling - 07/15/2026 Patrick McKinney

Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Pecos River Talc LLC's Ex Parte Application for Order to Advance the September 3, 2026 hearing on their Motion for Summary Adjudication to August 25 or August 27 is DENIED. However, the court grants Defendants relief from the Trial Setting Order and will hear the motion as noticed on September 3. As of the time of this Tentative Ruling, 14 motions have been filed and noticed for hearing on August 25 and 16 motions on August 27, primarily in other preference trial cases and including numerous summary judgment motions, and there is no further capacity on those dates.

Defendants' counsel must forthwith serve a copy of this order on all counsel of record and selfrepresented parties. The Court orders counsel to obtain a copy of this order from the eCourt portal.

CONTESTING THE TENTATIVE RULING: If the parties do not contest the tentative ruling, it will be adopted. Any party wishing to contest the tentative ruling 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