| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Date |
|---|
Multiple motions
Case No. CV25-00116 Penman, Brandi R. vs. General Motors, LLC
Tentative Ruling: Appearance Required: Parties were ordered to meet and confer per CRC rule 3.724
Case No. LC24-00147 Preim, David et al vs. Redding, Lawrence d et al
Tentative Ruling: Appearance Required: Hearing on multiple motions
FAMILY LAW/ LAW AND MOTION 10:30 A.M.
CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 1:30 p.m.
Case No. CV25-00243 McGarr, Tyler vs. Collinsworth, Blake et al
Tentative Ruling: Appearance Required: First CMC. Plaintiff has filed to file CMC statement. Proof of service has not been filed. On for OSC re: failure to abide by the timely filing requirements CRC rule 3.720-3.730
CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCES 2:00 p.m.
Case No. LC25-00210 Barclays Bank Delaware Vs. Hill, Scott
Tentative Ruling: Appearance Required: Status as to default.
Case No. CV23-00264 Dew, Justin alexander et al vs. Department of Transportation (CALTRANS), County of Plumas, State of California et al
Tentative Ruling: Appearance Required: Court intends to set Mandatory Settlement Conference and Trial dates.
Case No. CV25-00031 Glaspy, Patricia vs. RSH, INC. et al
Tentative Ruling: Appearance Required: Dismissal hearing per CRC rule 3.1385
3
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.