DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
23CV006712·sacramento·Civil·Civil
Hearing 10 months agoCase Management Conference continued

THOMAS vs KUPPINGER, et al.

Case Management Conference

Hearing date
Nov 14, 2025
Department
53
Judge
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
May 8, 2026
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffTHOMAS
DefendantKUPPINGER

Ruling

23CV006712: THOMAS vs KUPPINGER, et al. 11/14/2025 Case Management Conference in Department 53

Tentative Ruling

Notices:

Please note pursuant to the Standing Order of the Sacramento Superior Court No. SSC-25-27, as of November 10, 2025 this case is scheduled for Case Management in Dept 53.

Parties who wish to contest the tentative ruling below must: (1) request a hearing by calling the Case Management Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-5463 no later than 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the scheduled CMC, and (2) advise opposing counsel of the request. If a hearing is not requested by 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the scheduled CMC, the tentative ruling shall become the final order of the Court.

If a hearing is requested, the Court assumes that all parties will appear remotely via Zoom unless the Court orders in-person attendance. The Department 53 Zoom ID is: 161 4650 6749. To appear telephonically via Zoom, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Department 53 Zoom ID referenced above.

Court’s Tentative Ruling:

No appearance is required under the following conditions:

On the Court's own motion, the Case Management Conference scheduled for 11/14/2025 is continued to 05/08/2026 at 1:30 PM in Department 53 at Hall of Justice.

New Case Management Statements shall be filed by all parties no later than 15 days prior to the hearing pursuant to Local Rule 2.51.

The plaintiff is directed to serve the defendants with the Second Amended Complaint and shall diligently proceed to obtain the responsive pleading, default, or dismissal of defendants as to the Second Amended Complaint.

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