JAMES VS COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
Motion for Order Relieving Petitioner from Provisions
Motion type
Parties
Ruling
1. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME JAMES VS COUNTY OF MOTION FOR ORDER RELIEVING
RIVERSIDE PETITIONER FROM PROVISIONS Tentative Ruling: Continue the hearing on the unopposed Motion for Relief from GC section 945.4 to September 16, 2026 at 10:00 a.m.—the moving party shall give notice of the continued hearing to the County by email and mail.
2. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME KESSELRING VS RIVERSIDE COUNTY CVME2513170 DEPARTMENT OF DEMURRER ON 1ST AMENDED PETITION PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES Tentative Ruling: Sustain the demurrer for uncertainty and failure to allege sufficient facts with 30 days leave to amend.
3. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE GIORDANO VS CVME2511321 CROSS-COMPLAINT AND MOTION TO ASHCROFT DISQUALIFY Tentative Ruling:
Motions to Strike: The court previously continued the matter to require a proper meet and confer. Defendant has refused to meet and confer with Plaintiff’s counsel due to an alleged conflict of interest. The court finds that any further attempts to meet and confer to be futile and rules on the motion as follows:
Grant as to ¶12, 16, 19. Deny as to 8-10, 13, 14, 20, 23, and 35. Grant as to Paragraph 5 of the prayer, Plaintiffs are correct that Defendant failed to identify a cause of action that provides a basis to establish insurance policies.
Motion to Disqualify: Deny
4. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME WONG VS CVME2503199 ABUNDANCE REAL DEMURRERS AND MOTIONS TO STRIKE ESTATE Tentative Ruling: Continue the CMC to January 7, 2027.
Shorten time on the Motion to be Relieved as Counsel set for August 25, 2026 today’s date—grant the motion to withdraw as counsel and approved the Proposed Order with the addition to #7 giving notice of the CMC on January 7, 2027. Vacate the Hearing on August 25, 2026.
Cited authorities
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?”