DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
34-2018-00243344-CU-PO-GDS·sacramento·Civil·Personal Injury
Hearing almost 2 years agoMandatory Appearance

Cheryl Pocock vs. Darrel Cowan

Case Management Conference

Hearing date
Sep 13, 2024
Department
43
Judge
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffCheryl Pocock
PlaintiffHannah Philpott
PlaintiffSarah Philpott
PlaintiffJason Jaffe
PlaintiffRobert Jaffe
PlaintiffKenneth Haines, Jr
DefendantDarrel Cowan
Cross-ComplainantDarrel Cowan
Cross-ComplainantMatheson Postal Services Inc
Cross-DefendantEstate of Rebecca Philpott

Ruling

34-2018-00243344-CU-PO-GDS: Cheryl Pocock vs. Darrel Cowan 09/13/2024 Case Management Conference in Department 43

Tentative Ruling

Notices:

Any party who wishes to contest the tentative ruling below must: (1) request a hearing by calling the clerk in Department 43 at (916) 874-7561 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 43 Zoom ID is: 160 9096 1628. To appear telephonically via Zoom, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Department 43 Zoom ID referenced above.

All parties requesting oral argument for Department 43 will be heard at 9:00 a.m. the day of the scheduled hearing.

Court’s Tentative Ruling:

Mandatory Appearance of Cheryl Pocock (Plaintiff), Hannah Philpott (Plaintiff), Sarah Philpott (Plaintiff), Jason Jaffe (Plaintiff), Robert Jaffe (Plaintiff), Kenneth Haines, Jr (Plaintiff), Darrel Cowan (Defendant), Darrel Cowan (Cross-Complainant), Matheson Postal Services Inc (Cross- Complainant), Estate of Rebecca Philpott (Cross-Defendant) is required.

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