DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
24CV102357·alameda·Civil·Civil
Hearing 1 day agoCONTINUED

BURTON vs LANDER

Initial Case Management Conference

Hearing date
Sep 1, 2026
Department
22
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Nov 10, 2026
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$500

Parties

PlaintiffBURTON
DefendantLANDER

Ruling

24CV102357: BURTON vs LANDER 09/01/2026 Initial Case Management Conference in Department 22

Tentative Ruling - 08/28/2026 Han N. Tran

The Court has ordered the following after review of the case.

Case Management Conference is scheduled for 11/10/2026 at 3:00 PM in Department 22 at Rene C. Davidson Courthouse.

In its 6/2/26 Order, the Court ORDERED plaintiff to comply with Rules of Court, rule 3.110(g) and to seek entry of default against defendant for failing to respond to the operative complaint.

Plaintiff has failed to do so. The Court again ORDERS plaintiff to comply with Rules of Court, rule 3.110(g) and to seek entry of default against defendant for failing to respond to the operative complaint.

The Court is giving plaintiff one last opportunity to comply.

Failure to do so may result in an ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE in re $500 SANCTIONS and/or DISMISSAL for failure to comply with Rules of Court, rule 3.110(g) and failure to comply with the orders of this Court.

Rule 3.110(g) provides: “Request for entry of default- If a responsive pleading is not served within the time limits specified in this rule and no extension of time has been granted, the plaintiff must file a request for entry of default within 10 days after the time for service has elapsed. The court may issue an order to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed if the plaintiff fails to timely file the request for the entry of default.”

Plaintiff failed to file a Case Management Conference Statement and therefore violated California Rules of Court, rule 3.725. Plaintiff is admonished and ordered to file a Case Management Statement before the next hearing.

Plaintiff must file updated Case Management Statements in compliance with California Rules of Court, rule 3.725, on Judicial Council Form CM-110, no later than 15 calendar days before the hearing. If the foregoing date is a court holiday or a weekend, the time is extended to the next business day.

Clerk is directed to serve copies of this order, with proof of service, to counsel and to selfrepresented parties of record.

*******************************************************************

IF YOU DO NOT CONTEST THE TENTATIVE RULING AND IF NO OTHER PARTY 24CV102357: BURTON vs LANDER 09/01/2026 Initial Case Management Conference in Department 22 CONTEST THE TENTATIVE RULING, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO ATTEND THE HEARING AND THE COURT WILL AFFIRM THE TENTATIVE RULING.

IF YOU DO CONTEST THE TENTATIVE RULING, FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE BELOW:

THROUGH eCOURT Notify the Court and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps:

1. Log into eCourt Public Portal 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select “Search” 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select “Click to Contest this Ruling” 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select “Proceed”

BY EMAIL Send an email to the DEPARTMENT CLERK (dept22@alameda.courts.ca.gov) and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing. This will permit the department clerk to send invitations to counsel to appear remotely.

Notice via BOTH eCourt AND email is required. The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no party contests the tentative ruling.

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