DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25CV149576·alameda·Civil·Insurance
Hearing todayCONTINUED

ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY vs CONTRERAS

DEFENDANT EFREN RAUL CONTRERAS’ NOTICE OF DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT

Hearing date
Sep 3, 2026
Department
517
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Oct 1, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Demurrer rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffARCH INSURANCE COMPANY
DefendantEFREN RAUL CONTRERAS

Ruling

25CV149576: ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY vs CONTRERAS 09/03/2026 Hearing on Demurrer DEFENDANT EFREN RAUL CONTRERAS' NOTICE OF DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT; filed by Efren Raul Contreras (Defendant) CRS# 995266968197 in Department 517

Tentative Ruling - 09/01/2026 Keith Fong

The Hearing on Demurrer DEFENDANT EFREN RAUL CONTRERAS' NOTICE OF DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT; filed by Efren Raul Contreras (Defendant) CRS# 995266968197 scheduled for 09/03/2026 is continued to 10/01/2026 at 02:30 PM in Department 517 at Hayward Hall of Justice.

The demurrer is CONTINUED to October 1, 2026 at 2:30 PM in Department 20.

It appears from the record presently before the Court that there is sufficient foundation for a nunc pro tunc order to find that the complaint was timely filed.

The parties are ordered to meet and confer no later than September 18, 2026 to determine if the filing date can be informally resolved. If the parties so agree, they shall submit a stipulation and proposed order to the Court, and Defendant shall file a notice of withdrawal of the demurrer. If no agreement is reached, the Court will hear the demurrer on the continued hearing date. No further briefing on the demurrer is permitted without leave of Court.

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