DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CVME2505420·riverside·Probate·Case Management
Hearing todayCONTINUED

PEREZ V. KERRN

CMC & OSC

Hearing date
Sep 1, 2026
Department
M302
Judge
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Mar 23, 2027

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Ruling

1. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME CVME2505420 PEREZ V. KERRN CMC & OSC Tentative Ruling: Continue to March 23, 2027.

2. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME KIESAU V. CVME2509464 CMC & OSC SCHWERTFEGER Tentative Ruling: The Property is now in foreclosure. Hearing required.

3. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME ARMANI VS OSR2 R&V INVESTORS LLC, TMW, CVME2600128 DEMURRERS, CMC, AND OSC OAK SPRINGS 2 DEL, LLC Tentative Ruling: Sustain both demurrers without leave to amend for failure to state facts sufficient and uncertainty. Sanction Plaintiff $250 on the OSC for Proof of Service, payable within 30 days. Moving party to submit a proposed judgment order within 5 days. Continue the CMC and OSC to December 8, 2026. Set an additional OSC re: failure to prosecute as to the OSR2 and Greystar entities, with sanctions not to exceed $1,500 and/or striking the complaint.

4. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME RODRIGUEZ VS MURRIETA CVME2607026 MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC Tentative Ruling: Grant the motion compelling arbitration of Plaintiff’s individual PAGA claims, only. The entire action is stayed, pending arbitration. The delegation clause is clear and unmistakable, and Plaintiff has failed to show that it is revocable under state unconscionability principles. Therefore, the Court’s inquiry stops here and any other challenges to the validity and enforceability of the arbitration agreement is for the arbitrator to decide.

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