DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
26-01558281·orange·Civil·Contract
Hearing todayDemurrer is off calendar as MOOT

Stockstill vs. Interinsurance Exchange of The Automobile Club

Demurrer to Complaint

Hearing date
Aug 18, 2026
Department
C25
Prevailing
N/A
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Demurrer rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffStockstill
DefendantInterinsurance Exchange of The Automobile Club

Ruling

TENTATIVE RULINGS

LAW & MOTION

DEPT C25

Judge Gassia Apkarian

The court will hear oral argument on all matters at the time not iced for the hearing, unless the Court has stated that the matter is off calendar. Do not call the department to verify if you should appear or not. Please read below for the information. If you would prefer to submit to the Court’s tentative without oral argument, advise all counsel first to find out if all parties are submitting, and then the moving party is to telephone the clerk at (657)622-5225 with the status of all parties. If the moving party has submitted on the matter and there are no appearances by any party at the hearing, the tentative ruling will be the final ruling. Rulings are normally posted on the Internet by 12:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. Generally, motions will not be continued or tak en off the calendar after the tentative has been posted. The moving party shall give notice of the ruling.

August 18, 2026 10:00 AM

If you want a transcript, you must provide your own court reporter.

# Case Name Tentative 101 Stockstill vs. Interinsurance Exchange of The Automobile Club

26-01558281 Demurrer to Complaint FAC filed 07/29/2026 (ROA 38) - Demurrer is off calendar as MOOT

102 Johnston vs. Disneyland

25-01515207 1.Demurrer to First Amended Complaint Defendant, Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. dba Disneyland (“Defendant”), moves for an order sustaining the demurrer to every cause of action alleged in the First Amended Complaint of Plaintiff, Jeffrey Johnston (“Plaintiff”). Defendant contends that the claim in the First Amended Complaint is barred by Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689 because Plaintiff was an employee of an independent contractor that was hired to perform work at Defendant’s property, and that neither the retained control exception nor concealed hazard exception applies as there is no allegation that any act of Defendant

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