DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25CV-0208866·shasta·Civil·Order to Show Cause
Hearing 4 days agoDISCHARGED

HUFFMAN VS. HOLIDAY MARKET SAV MOR FOODS NORTH STATE GROCERY INC., ET AL.

Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions

Hearing date
Aug 17, 2026
Department
63
Judge
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Sep 21, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffLinda Huffman
DefendantNorth State Grocery, Inc.
DefendantVictor & Evye Szanto Trust

Attorneys

Sharona Eslamboly Hakim(Law Offices of Sharona Eslamboly Hakim)for Plaintiff

Ruling

CASE NUMBER: 25CV-0208866 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions: An Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions issued on July 1, 2026 to Plaintiff Linda Huffman and counsel Law Offices of Sharona Eslamboly Hakim for failure to timely serve Defendants as required by CRC 3.110(b). Plaintiff has since filed a Proof of Service of Summons for each of the named Defendants. The Order to Show Cause is DISCHARGED. Defendant North State Grocery, Inc. has filed an Answer. The Court notes that the date of personal service for Defendant Victor & Evye Szanto Trust is July 2, 2026, therefore, the time for filing a responsive pleading has lapsed.

Plaintiff has not sought entry of default as required by CRC 3.110(g). The matter will be on calendar on Monday, September 21, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 63 for status of default or responsive pleading and, if appropriate, trial setting. The Court expects Plaintiff to take the necessary steps to get the matter at issue prior to the next hearing. Plaintiff is to give Notice of this hearing to all parties and file said Notice with the Court no later than 5 Court days prior to said hearing.

KNOX VS. MOHAMUD, ET AL.

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