DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25CV126684·alameda·Civil·Civil
Hearing 3 months agoGRANTED

REYES, et al. vs CONOPCO, INC., et al.

Motion for Leave to Amend

Hearing date
Jun 2, 2026
Department
18
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffGARY REYES
PlaintiffPAUL REYES
PlaintiffNANCY BURDYSHAW
PlaintiffKAREN GORIA
PlaintiffJOAN REYES
PlaintiffGEORGE C. REYES
DefendantCONOPCO, INC.

Ruling

25CV126684: REYES, et al. vs CONOPCO, INC., et al. 06/02/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; filed by GARY REYES (Plaintiff) + CRS# 136020335517 in Department 18

Tentative Ruling - 05/29/2026 Patrick McKinney

The Motion for Leave PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT filed by PAUL REYES, NANCY BURDYSHAW, KAREN GORIA, JOAN REYES, GEORGE C. REYES, GARY REYES on 05/04/2026 is Granted.

Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for leave to amend the First Amended Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are instructed to separately file the proposed amended complaint; it will not be deemed filed by virtue of this order.

CONTESTING TENTATIVE ORDERS

Notify the Court and all other parties no later than 4:00 pm the day before the scheduled hearing and identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps.

1. Log into eCourt Public Portal - https://eportal.alameda.courts.ca.gov 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select Search 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select Click to Contest this Ruling 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select Proceed.

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