DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25CV161701·alameda·Civil·Civil
Hearing todayThe Jury Trial scheduled for 08/24/2026 is vacated and reassigned to Department 512.

GODINA, et al. vs MERCK & CO., INC., SUED INDIVIDUALLY, AS ALTER-EGO OF, AND AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO SCHOLL, INC. AND SCHERING-P..., et al.

Reassignment for Jury Trial

Hearing date
Aug 24, 2026
Department
18
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffGODINA
DefendantMERCK & CO., INC., SUED INDIVIDUALLY, AS ALTER-EGO OF, AND AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO SCHOLL, INC. AND SCHERING-P...

Ruling

25CV161701: GODINA, et al. vs MERCK & CO., INC., SUED INDIVIDUALLY, AS ALTER-EGO OF, AND AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO SCHOLL, INC. AND SCHERING-P..., et al. 08/24/2026 Jury Trial in Department 18

Tentative Ruling - 08/20/2026 Patrick McKinney

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that by direction of the Presiding Judge, the above matter has been reassigned for JURY TRIAL to the Hon. Elizabeth Riles, Department 512, located at the Hayward Hall of Justice, 24405 Amador Street, Hayward, CA 94544. This matter remains assigned to Department 18 for case management.

Pre-Trial Conference is scheduled for 08/24/2026 at 02:30 PM in Department 512 at Hayward Hall of Justice.

The Jury Trial scheduled for 08/24/2026 is vacated.

CONTESTING THE TENTATIVE RULING: If the parties do not contest the tentative ruling, it will be adopted. Any party wishing to contest the tentative ruling must notify the court by email at Dept18@alameda.courts.ca.gov, and notify all opposing counsel or unrepresented parties by 4pm the day before the hearing.

PLEASE NOTE: If the tentative ruling is contested, the matter will be heard at 10:00 am on August 25, 2026.

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