DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25CV123986·alameda·Civil·Case Management Conference
Hearing about 2 months agoCONTINUED

CERVANTES vs BRIDGER INSURANCE SERVICES

Initial Case Management Conference

Hearing date
Jul 22, 2026
Department
18
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Sep 2, 2026
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffCERVANTES
DefendantBRIDGER INSURANCE SERVICES

Ruling

25CV123986: CERVANTES vs BRIDGER INSURANCE SERVICES 07/22/2026 Initial Case Management Conference in Department 18

Tentative Ruling - 07/17/2026 Patrick McKinney

ORDER RE: CASE MANAGEMENT

The Court has ordered the following after review of the case, including timely filed Case Management Statements, without a conference.

The Initial Case Management Conference scheduled for 07/22/2026 is continued to 09/02/2026 at 01:30 PM in Department 18 at Rene C. Davidson Courthouse.

The conference is continued for the parties to complete the meet-and-confer and, if necessary, to permit Plaintiff to move to compel compliance with the Decemeber 17, 2025 order.

The parties are to file a joint updated case management conference statement on pleading paper at least 7 days before the next conference.

The Court orders counsel to obtain a copy of this order from the eCourt portal.

CONTESTING THE TENTATIVE CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER: If the parties do not contest the Tentative Case Management Order, it will be adopted. Any party wishing to contest the tentative case management order 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