DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
23CV012093·sacramento·Civil·Contract/General Civil
Hearing almost 2 years agoCONTINUED

ESTELLE’S BAKING COMPANY LLC v. DEMOSTHENES JOHN KAUFMAN AND MARIA THERESA KAUFMAN

Case Management Conference

Hearing date
Nov 1, 2024
Department
38
Judge
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Mar 7, 2025
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffESTELLE’S BAKING COMPANY LLC
DefendantDEMOSTHENES JOHN KAUFMAN
DefendantMARIA THERESA KAUFMAN

Ruling

23CV012093: ESTELLE'S BAKING COMPANY LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs DEMOSTHENES JOHN KAUFMAN AND MARIA THERESA KAUFMAN, TRUSTEES OF THE DJKM TRUST DATED FEBRUARY 23, 2000, et al. 11/01/2024 Case Management Conference in Department 38

Tentative Ruling

Notices: Any party who wishes to contest the tentative ruling below must: (1) request a hearing by calling the clerk in Department 38 at (916) 874-5226 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 that all parties will appear remotely via Zoom unless the Court orders in-person attendance. The Department 38 Zoom ID is: 161 0836 2593. To appear telephonically via Zoom, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Department 38 Zoom ID referenced above.

Court’s Tentative Ruling:

No appearance is required under the following conditions:

On the Court's own motion, the Case Management Conference scheduled for 11/01/2024 is continued to 03/07/2025 at 8:30 AM in Department 38 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.

This matter is continued to allow parties time to obtain Default Judgment or otherwise dispose of the case.

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