| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO PROVIDE RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
4. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT ALVARADO VS TRI- TO PROVIDE RESPONSES TO CVRI2501059 VALLEY MEDICAL SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET GROUP CORPORATION ONE Tentative Ruling: Continued by stipulation to July 13.
5. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME ESTRELLA VS MAGAVE MOTION TO COMPEL CVRI2503126 CARE, INC. ARBITRATION Tentative Ruling: Appearances requested. In addition to the Ayala-Ventura case, counsel should be prepared to discuss Stoker v. Blue Origin, LLC (2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 91.
6. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME JIMENEZ VS SKECHERS MOTION TO STAY DUE TO CVRI2504527 U.S.A, INC. PENDING OVERLAPPING ACTIONS Tentative Ruling: No tentative ruling, appearances requested.
7. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME ESTRELLA VS MAGAVE MOTION TO COMPEL CVRI2504676 CARE, INC. ARBITRATION Tentative Ruling: See related tentative ruling.
8. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME FRIENDS OF MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM CVRI2505311 RIVERSIDE'S HILLS VS DISMISSAL UNDER CODE OF CIVIL CITY OF RIVERSIDE PROCEDURE SECTION 473(B) Tentative Ruling: Petitioner moves for relief from dismissal of the CEQA cause of action under California Code of Civil Procedure § 473(b), arguing that the failure to file the request for a hearing within 90 days was the result of inadvertence or excusable neglect. Real Party argues that petitioner has changed its explanation from that
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?”