DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
23CV000374·sacramento·Civil·Civil
Hearing over 2 years agoThe Case Management Conference is continued to 02/14/2025.

CORDOVA FLORES vs LEDIN, et al.

Case Management Conference

Hearing date
Jan 19, 2024
Department
43
Judge
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Feb 14, 2025
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffCORDOVA FLORES
DefendantLEDIN

Ruling

23CV000374: CORDOVA FLORES vs LEDIN, et al. 01/19/2024 Case Management Conference in Department 43

Tentative Ruling

Notices:

Any party who wishes to contest the tentative ruling below must: (1) request a hearing by calling the clerk in Department 43 at (916) 874-7561 no later than 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the scheduled CMC, and (2) advise opposing counsel of the request. If a hearing is not requested by 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the scheduled CMC, the tentative ruling will become the final order of the Court.

If a hearing is requested, the Court assumes all parties will appear remotely via Zoom unless the Court orders in-person attendance. The Department 43 Zoom ID is: 160 9096 1628. To appear telephonically via Zoom, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Department 43 Zoom ID referenced above.

All parties requesting oral argument for Department 43 will be heard at 9:00 a.m. the day of the scheduled hearing.

Court’s Tentative Ruling:

No appearance is required under the following conditions:

On the Court's own motion, the Case Management Conference scheduled for 01/19/2024 is continued to 02/14/2025 at 08:30 AM in Department 43 at Gordon D. Schaber Superior Court.

New Case Management Statements shall be filed by all parties no later than 15 days prior to the hearing pursuant to Local Rule 2.51.

The Plaintiff is directed to serve the Defendants with the Complaint and shall diligently proceed to obtain the responsive pleading, default, or dismissal of Defendants as to the Complaint.

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