DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CIVSB2405299·sanbernardino·Civil·Personal Injury
Hearing 3 months agoGRANTED

HERNANDEZ vs. MONTGOMERY

Motion to Sever Plaintiff's Case-in-Chief from the Remaining Cross-Actions

Hearing date
Jun 5, 2026
Department
S37
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffEddie Hernandez, Jr.
PlaintiffEddie Hernandez
DefendantOptions for All, Inc.
DefendantChanice Montgomery
DefendantManuel Alejandro Chacon

Ruling

TENTATIVE RULING(S) FOR June 5, 2026 Department S37 – Judge Winston Keh This court follows California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(b) for tentative rulings. (See San Bernardino Superior Court Local Emergency Rule 8.) Tentative rulings for each law & motion will be posted on the internet (https://www.sb-court.org) by 3:00 p.m. on the court day immediately before the hearing.

You may appear in person at the hearing although remote appearance by CourtCall is preferred. (See www.sb-court.org/general-information/remote-access).

If you do not have Internet access or if you experience difficulty with the posted tentative ruling, you may obtain the tentative ruling by calling the department (S-37) at (909) 708-8707 or the Administrative Assistant (909) 708-8756, who prepared the ruling.

If you (or both parties) wish to submit on the Tentative, notify the other party and call the department by 4:00 pm the day before and your appearance may be excused unless the Court orders you to appear.

You must appear at the hearing if you are so directed by the court in the tentative ruling. Be prepared to address those issues set forth by the court in its ruling.

UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE PREVAILING PARTY IS TO GIVE NOTICE OF THE

RULING.

HERNANDEZ vs. MONTGOMERY

__________________________________________________________________________

TENTATIVE RULING(S):

Defendants/Cross-Complainants and Cross-Defendants Options for All, Inc. and Chanice

Montgomery’s Motion to Sever Plaintiff’s Case-in-Chief from the Remaining Cross-

Actions are GRANTED in its entirety. The Court notes that Defendant/Cross-Defendant

and Cross-Complainant Manuel Alejandro Chacon withdrew his opposition to the instant

motion. Thus, the motion is treated as un-opposed.

So Ordered.

TENTATIVE RULING(S) FOR June 5, 2026 Department S37 – Judge Winston Keh This court follows California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(b) for tentative rulings. (See San Bernardino Superior Court Local Emergency Rule 8.) Tentative rulings for each law & motion will be posted on the internet (https://www.sb-court.org) by 3:00 p.m. on the court day immediately before the hearing.

You may appear in person at the hearing although remote appearance by CourtCall is preferred. (See www.sb-court.org/general-information/remote-access).

If you do not have Internet access or if you experience difficulty with the posted tentative ruling, you may obtain the tentative ruling by calling the department (S-37) at (909) 708-8707 or the Administrative Assistant (909) 708-8756, who prepared the ruling.

If you (or both parties) wish to submit on the Tentative, notify the other party and call the department by 4:00 pm the day before and your appearance may be excused unless the Court orders you to appear.

You must appear at the hearing if you are so directed by the court in the tentative ruling. Be prepared to address those issues set forth by the court in its ruling.

UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE PREVAILING PARTY IS TO GIVE NOTICE OF THE

RULING.

HERNANDEZ vs. MONTGOMERY

__________________________________________________________________________

TENTATIVE RULING(S):

Motion(s): (1) Motion to Compel Independent Mental Examination

(2) Motion for Joinder

Movant(s): (1) Defendant Options for All, Inc.

(2) Defendant Alejandro Chacon (Joinder)

Respondent(s): Plaintiff Eddie Hernandez, Jr., by and through his Guardian ad Litem,

Eddie Hernandez

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