DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25CV143027·alameda·Civil·Cross-Complaint
Hearing 3 months agoGRANTED (Ex parte to continue), CONTINUED (Demurrers)

PORT OF OAKLAND, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ACTING BY AND THROUGH ITS BOARD OF PORT COMMISSIONERS vs BAUM, et al.

Demurrer to Cross-Complaint; Ex parte application to continue hearing

Hearing date
May 28, 2026
Department
23
Prevailing
Moving Party
Next hearing
Jul 9, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Demurrer rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffPort of Oakland
DefendantKevin Baum
DefendantAlejandra VanPell
Cross-DefendantWilliam Morrison
Cross-DefendantDavid Murtha
Cross-DefendantOffice of the Alameda County Assessor
Cross-DefendantPhong La

Ruling

25CV143027: PORT OF OAKLAND, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ACTING BY AND THROUGH ITS BOARD OF PORT COMMISSIONERS vs BAUM, et al. 05/28/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Cross-Complaint; filed by William Morrison, (Cross- Defendant) + CRS# A-143027-002 in Department 23

Tentative Ruling - 05/26/2026 Ruben Sundeen

The Court GRANTS the ex parte application of defendants and cross-complainants Kevin Baum and Alejandra VanPell (collectively, "Baum") to continue the hearing on the demurrer to crosscomplaint filed by the City of Oakland and cross-defendants William Morrison and David Murtha ("Port Demurrer").

The proposed opposition to demurrer filed by Baum on 5/26/2026 is deemed filed and served as of 5/26/2026.

The Port Demurrer is continued from 5/28/2026 to 7/9/2026 at 2:30 p.m. in Department 23. Any reply shall be filed and served no later than 7/1/2026 pursuant to CCP section 1005(b).

The demurrer of cross-defendants Office of the Alameda County Assessor and Phong La ("Assessor Demurrer") is ADVANCED from 9/17/2026 to 7/9/2026 at 2:30 p.m. in Department 23. The Court notes that Baum filed and served an opposition to the Assessor Demurrer on 5/13/2026. Any reply shall be filed and served no later than 7/1/2026. (CCP § 1005(b).)

The parties are to deliver courtesy copies of the reply papers to Department 23 at the time of filing.

The Hearing on Demurrer to Cross-Complaint; filed by William Morrison, (Cross-Defendant) + CRS# A-143027-002 scheduled for 05/28/2026 is continued to 07/09/2026 at 02:30 PM in Department 23 at Rene C. Davidson Courthouse.

The Hearing on Demurrer CROSS-DEFENDANTS ALAMEDA COUNTY ASSESSOR’S OFFICE AND ASSESSOR PHONG LA’S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT; filed by Office of the County Assessor (Cross-Defendant) + CRS# 774188044395 scheduled for 09/17/2026 is continued to 07/09/2026 at 02:30 PM in Department 23 at Rene C. Davidson Courthouse.

*If a party does not timely contest the tentative ruling and appear at the hearing, the tentative ruling will become the order of the Court.*

How to Contest a Tentative Ruling

Through the eCourt Public Portal

To contest a tentative ruling, notify the Court and all parties no later than 4:00 p.m. one court 25CV143027: PORT OF OAKLAND, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ACTING BY AND THROUGH ITS BOARD OF PORT COMMISSIONERS vs BAUM, et al. 05/28/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Cross-Complaint; filed by William Morrison, (Cross- Defendant) + CRS# A-143027-002 in Department 23 day before the scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue by completing the following steps:

1. Log in to the eCourt Public Portal.

2. Select Case Search.

3. Enter the case number and select Search.

4. Select the case name.

5. Select the Tentative Rulings tab.

6. Click “Contest This Ruling.”

7. Enter your name and reason for contesting.

8. Select Proceed.

You must also notify the department and all opposing parties by 4:00 p.m. one court day before the hearing. Notice to the department must be sent to: Dept23@alameda.courts.ca.gov.

Remote Appearance Information

For Department 23 Zoom appearance information, please visit:

https://eportal.alameda.courts.ca.gov/?q=node/397/1152402

Please provide this information to any self-represented or opposing parties.

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