OSC re Dismissal
June 8, 2026 Truckee Civil Law & Motion Tentative Rulings
1. CL0003635 Bank of America N.A. vs. Tylor J Slusher
No appearance required on June 8, 2026. On its own motion and due to the Court’s unanticipated unavailability, the Court continues the OSC re Dismissal to June 18, 2026, at 9:00 a.m., in Department A. Appearance is required by Plaintiff at the continued hearing to show cause as to why this case should not be dismissed and/or Plaintiff sanctioned for failure to serve the Summons and Complaint on Defendant despite the fact this case has been pending for over five (5) months. Absent good cause being shown, the Court intends, on its own motion, to set the matter for dismissal pursuant to CCP section 583.420 and vacate the trial date set for August 21, 2026 at 11:00 a.m.
2. CU0002393 Bobbie Davida Lowe vs. Benjamin Matteo
No appearances required on June 8, 2026. On its own motion and due to the Court’s unanticipated unavailability, the Court continues the OSC re Dismissal to June 18, 2026, at 9:00 a.m., in Department A. Appearance is required by Plaintiff at the continued hearing to show cause as to why this case should not be dismissed and/or Plaintiff sanctioned for failure to serve the Summons and Complaint on Defendant via some approved method after the Court granted multiple extensions to the order to show cause hearing.
The Court notes, on April 27, 2026, it ordered Plaintiff to file a proof of service, an application to serve by publication (if deemed appropriate), or a request for dismissal of defendant in advance of the present order to show cause date. No such actions have been taken, with Plaintiff instead filing another Declaration of Non-Service on May 21, 2026. The Court also notes the Declaration reflects only one further attempt to serve Plaintiff between March 31, 2026 and May 21, 2026, a period of nearly two (2) months.
3. CU0002527 Jerome Nocerino vs. Airbnb, Inc. et al
No appearances required on June 8, 2026. On its own motion and due to the Court’s unanticipated unavailability, the Court continues the OSC re Transfer to June 18, 2026, at 9:00 a.m., in Department A. Appearance is required by Plaintiff at the continued hearing to show cause as to why this case should not be transferred to Placer County Superior Court with Plaintiff paying any costs related to transfer. It appears to the Court, proper venue of this action is Placer County in that the Complaint alleges injury to Plaintiff occurred in Soda Springs, California which the Court believes to be located in Placer County, California.
4. CU0002730 In Re Alves, de Almeida, Liliane
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
No appearance required. The Court is in receipt of proof of publication and finds notice has been given as required by law and good cause exists to grant the requested name change as set forth in the proposed Decree finding it appropriate to grant the request without hearing. The Court notes it has capitalized the letter D in De which is the manner set forth in the published notice. A certified copy of the Decree will be available for pick up on June 9, 2026 after 1:30 p.m.
5. CU00027301 In Re Cortes, Flor Lucero 1