DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
26STCV18890·la·Civil·Civil
Hearing in about 5 hoursCONTINUED

Jones v. Bushnell

Defendant's Special Motion to Strike

Hearing date
Sep 2, 2026
Department
514
Judge
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Sep 22, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Anti-SLAPP Motion rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffJones
DefendantLeslie Bushnell

Ruling

(Stanley Mosk Courthouse: Dept. 514) September 2, 2026 DEPARTMENT 514 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

Bushnell

Defendant's Special Motion to Strike Tentative Ruling

On July 23, 2026, Defendant Leslie Bushnell filed a Notice of Related Case. The notice identified two cases pending in the probate division as related to this civil case.

On July 27, 2026, this Court issued an order directing the parties to file the Notice of Related Case with the Supervising Judge of the Civil Division in Department 534 (formerly Department 1), as required by Local Rule 3.3. The Court has reviewed the file and sees no evidence that the parties have complied with the Court's order dated July 27, 2026.

The Court CONTINUES the hearing on Defendant's Special Motion to Strike for approximately 45 days.

The Court ORDERS Defendant Leslie Bushnell, by September 8, 2026, (1) to submit the Notice of Related Case directly to Department 534, (2) to file the Notice of Related Case in all cases identified in the notice, to serve all parties in all cases identified in the notice, to comply with all requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300 and Local Rule 3, and the follow up with Department 534 to confirm that the Notice of Related Case has been received in that department.

The Court ORDERS Defendant Leslie Bushnell, by September 15, 2026, to file a written report in this Case No. 26STCV18890, showing compliance with this order and the Court's order of July 27, 2026.

The Court SETS a Non-Appearance Case Review Re: Submission of Notice of Related Case to Department 534 for September 22, 2026, at 10:30 am, in this department. The Judicial Assistant is directed 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