DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
S-CV-0054259·placer·Civil·Civil
Hearing 8 days agoAPPEARANCE REQUIRED

FARBER, JOHN v. APPLES & HONEYBEES

Defendants Jeffrey Slott and Law Offices of Jeffrey Slott, APC’s Motion to Quash Doe Amendment; Defendants Jeffrey Slott and Law Offices of Jeffrey Slott, APC’s Demurrer to the Complaint; Defendants Jeffrey Slott and Law Offices of Jeffrey Slott, APC’s Motion to Strike Portions of the Complaint

Hearing date
Aug 14, 2026
Department
1
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Quash rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffJOHN FARBER
DefendantAPPLES & HONEYBEES
DefendantJEFFREY SLOTT
DefendantLAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY SLOTT, APC

Attorneys

Jeffrey Slott(Law Offices of Jeffrey Slott, APC)for Defendant

Ruling

PLACER COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT FRIDAY, CIVIL LAW AND MOTION DEPARTMENT 1 COMMISSIONER CHRISTINE S. DEHR TENTATIVE RULINGS FOR AUGUST 14, 2026 AT 8:30 A.M.

11. S-CV-0054259 FARBER, JOHN v. APPLES & HONEYBEES

NOTE: If oral argument is requested in this case, it shall be heard on AUGUST 18, 2026 AT 2:30 P.M. in DEPARTMENT 1.

Defendants Jeffrey Slott and Law Offices of Jeffrey Slott, APC’s Motion to Quash Doe Amendment

The appearances of the parties are required at the hearing.

Defendants Jeffrey Slott and Law Offices of Jeffrey Slott, APC’s Demurrer to the Complaint

The appearances of the parties are required at the hearing.

Defendants Jeffrey Slott and Law Offices of Jeffrey Slott, APC’s Motion to Strike Portions of the Complaint

The appearances of the parties are required for the hearing.

///

PLACER SUPERIOR COURT – DEPARTMENT 1 Friday Civil Law and Motion – Tentative Rulings

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