DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
24CV-06534·merced·Civil·Unlawful Detainer / Settlement
Hearing 3 months agoAppearance required.

[Parties’ names withheld] vs [Parties’ names withheld]

Status Review of Settlement

Hearing date
Jun 1, 2026
Department
9
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

Plaintiff[Parties’ names withheld]
Defendant[Parties’ names withheld]

Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MERCED

Limited Civil Judge Pro Tem Alexandria Carl Courtroom 9

627 W. 21 st Street, Merced

Monday, June 1st, 2026 1:30 p.m.

Case No. Title / Description

24CV-06534 [Parties’ names withheld pursuant to CCP § 1161.2(a)(1)]

Status Review of Settlement

Appearance required. Appear to address status of settlement. On May 30, 2025, Plaintiff filed a settlement agreement indicating that Defendant’s final payment for past due rent was due on February 1, 2026. If no party appears, the Court will dismiss the action while retaining jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.

25CV-01267 Discover Bank vs. Patricia Harrison

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

The unopposed motion for judgment on the pleadings by plaintiff Discover Bank is GRANTED without leave to amend the answer. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c)(1)(A).) The Court finds that the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for breach of written contract against defendant Patricia Harrison. Defendant’s answer admits all statements of the complaint and does not allege any facts constituting a The following tentative rulings shall become the ruling of the court unless a party gives notice of intention to appear as follows: 1. You must call (209) 725-4240 to notify the court of your intent to appear.

2. You must give notice to all other parties before 4:00 p.m. of your intent to appear. Per California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1), failure to do both items 1 and 2 will result in no oral argument. Note: Notifying CourtCall (the court’s telephonic appearance provider) of your intent to appear does not satisfy the requirement of notifying the court.

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