DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
22CV016505·alameda·Civil·Case Management
Hearing 3 months agoCONTINUED

WARD, et al. vs GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al.

Case Management Conference

Hearing date
Jun 9, 2026
Department
18
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Sep 8, 2026
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffWARD
DefendantGENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY

Ruling

22CV016505: WARD, et al. vs GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al. 06/09/2026 Case Management Conference in Department 18

Tentative Ruling - 05/28/2026 Patrick McKinney

ORDER RE: CASE MANAGEMENT

The Court has ordered the following after review of the case, including timely filed Case Management Statements, without a conference.

The Case Management Conference scheduled for 06/09/2026 is continued to 09/08/2026 at 01:30 PM in Department 18 at Rene C. Davidson Courthouse.

The conference is continued for updated status consistent with the May 20, 2026 stipulated order to continue trial. Updated Case Management Statements must be filed by Plaintiff and Designated Defense Counsel no later than 15 days prior to the CMC and posted on eCourt.

Designated Defense Counsel (Defendant) 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 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER: If the parties do not contest the Tentative Case Management Order, it will be adopted. Any party wishing to contest the tentative case management order 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