DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
21CV376210·santaclara·Civil·Enforcement of Judgment
Hearing 3 months agoCONTINUED

Ku et al v Herchen et al

Order of Examination

Hearing date
May 29, 2026
Department
12
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffKu
DefendantHerchen

Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 12 Honorable Nahal Iravani-Sani, Presiding Courtroom Clerk, Ryan Nguyen 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 882-2230

DATE: 05/29/2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. and 9:01 A.M.

LINE 7 23CV416938 Patel et al. (Cross MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL Complainants) v. Hoge, Fenton, Jones & Due to a combination of outstanding discovery (Line 2) and clerical Appel, Inc. (Cross- calendaring error regarding pending Motion for Summary Judgment, the Defendant) motion to continue trial is GRANTED. Motion for Summary Judgment will remain as previously set on August 12, 2026. Jury trial will be continued to 4/12/2027. All discovery and motion cut-off dates, settlement conference dates, and trial assignment dates shall correspond to the April 12, 2027 trial date.

Cross-Defendant to prepare final proposed order accompanied by necessary Form EFS-020 within 7 days of the hearing. 9:01 Line 1 21CV376210 Ku et al v ORDER OF EXAMINATION Herchen et al Continued from 3/18/26 Line 2 25CV477044 Rocha Zamora v COMPROMISE OF MINOR’S CLAIM - for Jayson Avalos Rocha Topgolf Callaway et al. If no notice of matter being contested by 4:00 p.m on 5/28/2026, the Court will sign the e-filed proposed order. Line 3 || || COMPROMISE OF MINOR’S CLAIM - for Baltazar Navarrete Cardenas

If no notice of matter being contested by 4:00 p.m on 5/28/2026, the Court will sign the e-filed proposed order.

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