DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
23CV-0203580·shasta·Civil·Civil
Hearing about 1 month agoCONTINUED

Nunez vs. Jurin, et al.

Review regarding status of judgment/dismissal

Hearing date
Jul 20, 2026
Department
64
Judge
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Sep 21, 2026
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffNunez
DefendantWendy Jurin
DefendantRonald Jurin
DefendantTrinity River Construction

Ruling

CASE NUMBER: 23CV-0203580 DISCLOSURE: Prior to taking the bench, Judge Birss worked in private practice as an attorney. Judge Birss previously represented Ronald Jurin and Wendy Jurin in separate and unrelated proceedings. His representation of both falls outside the time period requiring recusal. That prior representation does not impact his ability to be fair and impartial.

This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of judgment/dismissal. Defendant Wendy Jurin has been dismissed from this matter. The remaining Defendants: Ronald Jurin and Trinity River Construction, were defaulted in April of 2024. No request for default judgment has been filed despite the passage of over two years. Plaintiff’s counsel has filed a status report requesting an additional forty-five days to submit the default prove up packet. The matter is continued to Monday, September 21, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 64 for review regarding status of judgment/dismissal. No further continuances will be granted and the Court intends to issue an Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions if the default prove up packet is not submitted prior to the next court date. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS. $4,000.00 U.S. CURRENCY

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