DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
23CV052073·alameda·Civil·Civil
Hearing 3 months agoSanctions of $300.00 imposed against Plaintiff's counsel.

BANTUPALLI vs GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al.

Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to appear

Hearing date
May 28, 2026
Department
512
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Motion for Sanctions rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$300.00

Parties

PlaintiffBantupalli
DefendantGeneral Motors, LLC

Attorneys

Ryan K. Mardenfor Plaintiff

Ruling

23CV052073: BANTUPALLI vs GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 05/28/2026 Order to Show Cause Re: RE: Failure to appear in Department 512

Tentative Ruling - 05/26/2026 Jenna Whitman

ORDER RE: CASE MANAGEMENT AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

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

On 4/22/2026, Judge Riles issued an Order to Show Cause why Plaintiff's counsel should not be sanctioned $300.00 for failure to appear at a duly noticed hearing. The Order further provided:

"Plaintiff's Counsel is ordered to file a written response to the order to show cause under oath no later than 15 calendar days before the order to show cause hearing.

The Court expects a statement 15 days before the next hearing regarding the status of the stay or the dismissal."

No such statement appears in the Register of Actions.

[Attorney] Ryan K. Marden is/are ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $300.00 by 06/29/2026 payable to County of Alameda Superior Court. For failing to: Show good cause for failure to appear

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

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