DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
34-2020-00278366-CU-BC-GDS·sacramento·Civil·Contract
Hearing 5 months agoGRANTED

Temblor Petroleum Company, LLC vs. California Energy Exchange Corporation

Motion to Amend Judgment

Hearing date
Apr 10, 2026
Department
23
Judge
Prevailing
Moving Party
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffTemblor Petroleum Company, LLC
DefendantCalifornia Energy Exchange Corporation
PlaintiffJeffrey M. Vetter
PlaintiffMountain Energy, LLC
PlaintiffInproinvest

Ruling

34-2020-00278366-CU-BC-GDS: Temblor Petroleum Company, LLC a Delaware Limited Liability Company vs. California Energy Exchange Corporation 04/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Amend Judgment in Department 23

Tentative Ruling

NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT WILL MOVE TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MATTERS IN THIS CASE AFTER APRIL 13, 2026 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8A OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE.***

Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants Jeffrey M. Vetter, Trustee of the Bankruptcy Estate of Temblor Petroleum Company, LLC, Mountain Energy, LLC, and Inproinvest’s motion for an order amending the judgment entered on November 17, 2025 is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED. The Court will sign the amended judgment submitted with the moving papers.

To request oral argument on this matter, you must call Department 23 at 916-874-5754 by 4:00 p.m., the court day before this hearing and notification of oral argument must be made to the opposing party/counsel. If no call is made, the tentative ruling becomes the order of the court. (Local Rule 1.06.)

Please check your tentative ruling prior to the next Court date at www.saccourt.ca.gov prior to the above referenced hearing date.

If oral argument is requested, the parties may and are encouraged to appear by Zoom with the links below:

To join by Zoom Link - https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept23 To join by phone dial (833) 568-8864 ID 16108301121

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code section 68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list. Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk.

34-2020-00278366-CU-BC-GDS: Temblor Petroleum Company, LLC a Delaware Limited Liability Company vs. California Energy Exchange Corporation 04/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Amend Judgment in Department 23

If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

This minute order is effective immediately. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order or further notice is necessary.

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