DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
23CV049166·alameda·Civil·Civil
Hearing about 2 months agoDENIED

KELLY vs BOXER & GERSON LLP

Motion for Appointment of Guardian ad Litem

Hearing date
Jul 17, 2026
Department
520
Prevailing
N/A
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffKarynn S. Kelly
DefendantBOXER & GERSON LLP

Ruling

23CV049166: KELLY vs BOXER & GERSON LLP 07/17/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion for Appointment of Guardian ad Litem; filed by Karynn S. Kelly (Plaintiff) CRS# 297942942947 in Department 520

Tentative Ruling - 07/13/2026 Jamilah A. Jefferson

The Notice of Motion And Motion For Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem filed by Karynn S. Kelly on 06/03/2026 is Denied.

The Court is inclined to grant the Motion for Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem if Plaintiff submits a judicial council proposed order form (CIV-011/FL-936) for the Court to conform and sign directly to Department 520.

NOTICE: This tentative ruling will automatically become the court’s final order on July 17, 2026 unless, by no later than 4:00 P.M. on July 16, 2026, a party to the action notifies BOTH: 1) the court by emailing Dept520@alameda.courts.ca.gov; AND 2) all opposing counsel or selfrepresented parties (by telephone or email) that the party is contesting this tentative ruling.

The subject line (RE:) of the email must state: “Request for CONTESTED HEARING: [the case name], [number].” When a party emails to contest a tentative ruling, the party must identify the specific holding(s) within the ruling they wish to contest via oral argument.

The court does not provide court reporters for hearings in civil departments. A party who wants a record of the proceedings must engage a private court reporter. (Local Rule 3.95.) Any privately retained court reporter must also participate via video conference. Their email must be provided to the court at the time the Notice of Contest is emailed.

ALL CONTESTED LAW AND MOTION HEARINGS ARE CONDUCTED VIA REMOTE VIDEO unless an in person appearance is required by the court. Invitations to participate in the video proceeding will be sent by the court upon receipt of timely notice of contest. A party may give email notice that they will appear in court in person for the hearing, however all other counsel/parties and the JUDGE MAY APPEAR REMOTELY.

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