DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
34-2022-00324302-CU-PA-GDS·sacramento·Civil·Personal Injury
Hearing 8 months agoMandatory Appearance of all parties required.

Douglas Boyer vs. Blach Distributing Co, a company

Case Management Conference

Hearing date
Jan 23, 2026
Department
25
Judge
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffDouglas Boyer
DefendantBlach Distributing Co, a company

Ruling

34-2022-00324302-CU-PA-GDS: Douglas Boyer vs. Blach Distributing Co, a company 01/23/2026 Case Management Conference in Department 25

Tentative Ruling

Notices:

Please note pursuant to the Standing Order of the Sacramento Superior Court No. SSC-25- 27, as of November 10, 2025 this case is scheduled for Case Management in Dept 25. Parties who wish to contest the tentative ruling below must: (1) request a hearing by calling the Case Management Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-5463 no later than 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the scheduled CMC, and (2) advise opposing counsel of the request. If a hearing is not requested by 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the scheduled CMC, the tentative ruling shall become the final order of the Court. If a hearing is requested, the Court assumes that all parties will appear remotely via Zoom unless the Court orders in-person attendance. The Department 25 Zoom ID is: 161 1342 1868. To appear telephonically via Zoom, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Department 25 Zoom ID referenced above.

Court’s Tentative Ruling:

Mandatory Appearance of all parties required.

Parties shall appear at the hearing prepared to discuss the status of this case.

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