DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
22CV008221·alameda·Civil·Civil Litigation
Hearing 3 months agoDENIED

BRINKLEY, et al. vs CLARIDGE HOTEL LLC, et al.

Motion to Continue Trial

Hearing date
May 26, 2026
Department
21
Prevailing
Opposing Party
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffBRINKLEY
DefendantCLARIDGE HOTEL LLC
DefendantCLARIDGE HOTEL, L.P.
DefendantSFRENT.NET LLC

Ruling

22CV008221: BRINKLEY, et al. vs CLARIDGE HOTEL LLC, et al. 05/26/2026 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial filed by Claridge Hotel LLC (Defendant) + CRS# 267066647583 in Department 21

Tentative Ruling - 05/21/2026 S. Raj Chatterjee

The Motion to Continue Trial Date filed by Claridge Hotel LLC, CLARIDGE HOTEL, L.P., SFRENT.NET LLC on 04/23/2026 is Denied.

The Motion of Defendant Claridge Hotel to continue trial is DENIED. The Court finds that Defendant has not shown good cause to continue the trial date. "[T]he dates assigned for a trial are firm." (CRC 3.1332.) The case has been pending since 3/10/22, is already four years old, and should be brought to trial promptly. The trial date has been set since 3/24/25 and counsel had the opportunity to schedule to avoid trial conflicts. The Court finds the arguments in the Opposition brief to be persuasive.

PLEASE NOTE: This tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if uncontested by 04:00pm the day before your hearing. If you wish to contest the tentative ruling, then both notify opposing counsel directly and the court at the eCourt portal found on the court’s website: www.alameda.courts.ca.gov.

If you have contested the tentative ruling or your tentative ruling reads, “parties to appear,” please use the following link to access your hearing at the appropriate date and time: https://alameda-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/department21. If no party has contested the tentative ruling, then no appearance is necessary.

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