DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25CV007530·sacramento·Civil·Civil
Hearing 4 months agoCase Management Conference continued

LAHMANI LAW APC vs BUCIO, et al.

Initial Case Management Conference

Hearing date
Apr 29, 2026
Department
16C
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Oct 30, 2026
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffLAHMANI LAW APC
DefendantMaura Zaragoza Bucio
DefendantAllied Pain Management
DefendantElk Grove Diagnostic Imaging
DefendantRoseville Diagnostic Imaging
DefendantCreative Legal Funding
DefendantRoseville Surgery Center
DefendantOpen Advantage MRI
DefendantCapitol Physical Therapy
DefendantUniversity Medical Imaging
DefendantAssociated Family Physicians, Inc.
DefendantDoxey Chiropractic
DefendantRegional Medical Center
DefendantTravis Loidolt, D.O. Inc.
DefendantCenter for Interventional Spine
DefendantLodi Acupuncture Clinic
DefendantMidwest Medical Clinic

Ruling

25CV007530: LAHMANI LAW APC vs BUCIO, et al. 04/29/2026 Initial Case Management Conference in Department 16C

Tentative Ruling

Notices:

The Sacramento Superior Court is transitioning operations from the Gordon D. Schaber and Hall of Justice buildings to the new Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse through a phased move plan beginning on April 13, 2026. Visit the court’s website at www.saccourt.ca.gov for the most current and up to date information regarding the transition. The physical and mailing address of the new downtown courthouse is:

Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse 500 G Street Sacramento, CA 95814

Please take notice, effective April 13, 2026, Department 54 is moved to Department 16C at the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse. The Honorable Christopher E. Krueger remains presiding over all Home Court proceedings, including Case Management and Law & Motion. All hearings currently scheduled or reserved after the effective date shall remain in place and will be heard in Department 16C.

Hon. Christopher E. Krueger Department 16C 916-874-7858 or 916-874-7848 dept16C@saccourt.ca.gov

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard in Department 8C, located at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Richard C. Miadich presiding. Parties who wish to contest the tentative ruling below must: (1) request a hearing by calling the Case Management Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-5463 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 shall become the final order of the Court.

If a hearing is requested, the Court assumes that all parties will appear remotely via Zoom unless the Court orders in-person attendance. The Department 8C Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16039062174 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 160 3906 2174. To appear telephonically via Zoom, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Department 8C Zoom ID referenced above.

Court’s Tentative Ruling:

25CV007530: LAHMANI LAW APC vs BUCIO, et al. 04/29/2026 Initial Case Management Conference in Department 16C

No appearance is required under the following conditions:

Case Management Conference is scheduled for 10/30/2026 at 9:00 AM in Department 16C at Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse.

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 shall diligently proceed to obtain the responsive pleadings, defaults, or dismissals of defendants Maura Zaragoza Bucio, Allied Pain Management, Elk Grove Diagnostic Imaging, Roseville Diagnostic Imaging, Creative Legal Funding, Roseville Surgery Center, Open Advantage MRI, Capitol Physical Therapy, University Medical Imaging, Associated Family Physicians, Inc., Doxey Chiropractic, Regional Medical Center, Travis Loidolt, D.O. Inc., Center for Interventional Spine, Lodi Acupuncture Clinic, and Midwest Medical Clinic 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