DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
23NWCV03659·la·Civil·Wrongful death
Hearing todayGRANTED

Hood, et al. v. Estate of Cain Ramirez, et al.

Ex parte application to advance hearing on Motion for Good Faith Settlement

Hearing date
Aug 31, 2026
Department
P
Judge
Prevailing
Moving Party
Next hearing
Oct 9, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Ex Parte Application rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Parties

PlaintiffHood, et al.
DefendantEstate of Cain Ramirez
DefendantEstate of Edward Olin Hood
DefendantClean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc.

Ruling

(Norwalk Courthouse: Dept. P) August 31, 2026 DEPARTMENT P LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

Ramirez, et al., 23NWCV03659 This wrongful death action was filed on November 9, 2023. Trial is scheduled to begin on December 7, 2026. Defendant/Cross-Defendant Estate of Edward Olin Hood's (Defendant) Motion for Good Faith Settlement (Motion) is scheduled to be heard after trial, on February 16, 2027. Defendant now applies ex parte to advance the hearing on its Motion so that it may be heard before the trial date so that the parties do not expend resources preparing for trial. In opposition, Defendants/Cross-Complainants Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc. and Estate of Cain Ramirez (Cross-Complainants) note that they do not oppose this ex parte application, however, Cross-Complainants add that advancing the Motion does not resolve Cross-Complainants' survival claim against Defendants.

Thus, Cross-Complainants request a trial continuance or an immediate status conference to resolve pending discovery. Defendant's ex parte application to advance the hearing on the Motion is GRANTED. Defendant's Motion for Good Faith Settlement is ADVANCED to today's date and CONTINUED to Friday, October 9, 2026, at 9:30 AM in Dept. P. Opposition and reply to be filed and served per Code in accordance with the new hearing date. The Court also SETS a status conference for Friday, September 4, 2026 at 9:30 AM to address the need for a trial continuance and/or remaining discovery.

Moving party to give notice. | Home -->)" -->

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