DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
24CV017897·sacramento·Civil·Case Management Conference
Hearing over 1 year agoCONTINUED

PATTON vs ARVO SOLAR FRANCHISING, LLC

Case Management Conference

Hearing date
Mar 28, 2025
Department
25
Judge
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Nov 7, 2025
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffPatton
DefendantArvo Solar Franchising, LLC
Cross-ComplainantAndrew Dean
Cross-ComplainantHearthstone Brokerage Inc

Ruling

24CV017897: PATTON vs ARVO SOLAR FRANCHISING, LLC 03/28/2025 Case Management Conference in Department 25

Tentative Ruling

Notices:

Please note that cases scheduled for Case Management Conference in Department 43 on or after 01/24/25 will be heard in Department 25.

Any party who wishes to contest the tentative ruling below must: (1) request a hearing by calling the clerk in Department 25 at (916) 874-8727 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 will become the final order of the Court.

If a hearing is requested, the Court assumes 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:

No appearance is required under the following conditions:

On the Court's own motion, the Case Management Conference scheduled for 03/28/2025 is continued to 11/07/2025 at 8:30 AM in Department 25 at Gordon D. Schaber Superior Court.

New Case Management Statements shall be filed by all parties no later than 15 days prior to the hearing pursuant to Local Rule 2.51.

Cross-Complaint filed 12/06/2024 by Andrew Dean and Hearthstone Brokerage Inc:

The cross-complainant is directed to serve the cross-defendants with the cross-complaint and shall diligently proceed to obtain the responsive pleading, default, or dismissal of crossdefendants as to the Cross-Complaint.

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