| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Date |
|---|
Order to Show Cause re Dismissal
parties. Dwyer Decl., ¶ 5. Plaintiff’s counsel associated provided Defendants’ counsel with a copy of the proposed Third Amended Complaint on February 12, 2026, and filed the present motion on February 24, 2026. Anderson Decl., ¶ 6.
The requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(a)-(b) are satisfied. Requests to amend pleadings are to be liberally considered. No trial date has been set and the motion is unopposed. Accordingly, the court finds no prejudice to Defendant. Moreover, the delay in seeking to amend is not unreasonable given the date of discovery conducted leading to the amendments. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is granted. Plaintiff is to file its third amended complaint within ten (10) calendar days of April 27, 2026.
8. CU0001835 Christopher Holden vs. India Ledward
Appearance required. A notice of conditional settlement was filed on December 2, 2025 indicating a dismissal of this action would be filed by January 12, 2026. Such did not occur. On March 23, 2026, the Court continued the OSC for slightly more than one month based on an indication the conditions of settlement were close to being met with only a signed deed and a payment needing to be received. Now, Plaintiff has filed a CMC statement (despite the matter not being set for CMC) indicating the case is in the very same posture it was in on March 1, 2026. Based on this indication and the lengthy amount of time since the filing of the notice of settlement, the Court is inclined to dismiss this action on its own motion.
9. CU0002393 Bobbie Davida Lowe vs. Benjamin Matteo
No appearance required. On the Court’s own motion and in light of the Declaration filed by counsel for Plaintiff, the Court continues the OSC re Dismissal to June 8, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. in Dept. A. Plaintiff shall file a proof of service, an application to serve by publication (if deemed appropriate), or a request for dismissal of defendant in advance of the continued order to show cause date. The Court notes a previous 60-day extension was granted on February 23, 2026. The Court will not be inclined to grant a further extension. The Court also notes, no attempts to serve were made between October of 2025 and late March of 2026, a period of approximately five (5) months.
10. CU0002429 Hunter, Carol Jean v. Rodriguez, Linda
Appearances required for the Order to Show Cause re Contempt – Arraignment.
11. CU0002513 TRUCKEE CROSSROADS S.C., LP, a Delaware limited partnership vs. SIERRA CREST CORPORATION, a Nevada corporation et al
Extracted by Gemini Flash 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
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Powered by Gemini Flash Lite. Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.
No appearances required. In light of the proofs of service of the Summons and Complaint filed on February 13, 2026 combined with an Answer now being filed, the OSC re Dismissal is VACATED on the Court’s own motion.
12. CU0002630 In Re Escobedo, Noe Osbaldo Luna
Appearance required to ensure no objections are made at the time of hearing requiring response from Petitioner. The Court is inclined to grant the name change request based on no objections 12