DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
21CV000179·alameda·Civil·Personal Injury
Hearing 3 months agoGRANTED

CASTRO, et al. vs BRANDSAFWAY SERVICES LLC

Ex Parte Application for an Order Setting a Date for a Hearing of Motion for Summary Judgment or in the alternative Summary Adjudication

Hearing date
Jun 4, 2026
Department
18
Prevailing
Moving Party
Next hearing
Sep 1, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Ex Parte Application rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffCASTRO
DefendantBRANDSAFWAY SERVICES LLC
DefendantShell USA, Inc.

Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 21CV000179: CASTRO, et al. vs BRANDSAFWAY SERVICES LLC 06/04/2026 Hearing on Ex Parte Application for an Order Setting a Date for a Hearing of Motion for Summary Judgment or in the alternative Summary Adjudication CRS# A- 00179-002 in Department 18 Tentative Ruling - 06/03/2026 Patrick McKinney Defendant Shell USA, Inc.’s Ex Parte Application for Order Setting Date for Hearing on its Motion for Summary Judgment/Summary Adjudication ("MSJ/MSA") is GRANTED.

Defendant Shell USA’s MSJ/MSA will be heard as noticed on Tuesday, September 1, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. section 437c(a)(3).) Defendant Shell USA’s counsel must forthwith serve a copy of this order on all counsel of record and self-represented parties. The Court orders counsel to obtain a copy of this order from the eCourt portal. CONTESTING THE TENTATIVE RULING: If the parties do not contest the tentative ruling, it will be adopted. Any party wishing to contest the tentative ruling must notify the court by email at Dept18@alameda.courts.ca.gov, and notify all opposing counsel or unrepresented parties by 4pm the day before the hearing.

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