DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
2026CUPA061096·ventura·Civil·Civil
Hearing 2 months agoGRANTED

ALLAN IRVIN MILLER, et al. vs ALAN SANDER HOFFMAN

Motion for Trial Preference

Hearing date
Jun 22, 2026
Department
21
Judge
Prevailing
Moving Party
Next hearing
Oct 12, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffALLAN IRVIN MILLER
DefendantALAN SANDER HOFFMAN

Ruling

2026CUPA061096: ALLAN IRVIN MILLER, et al. vs ALAN SANDER HOFFMAN 06/22/2026 in Department 21 Motion for Trial Preference

Tentative Rulings. Parties and counsel appearing for oral argument should address the tentative decision. Parties may submit on the tentative decision by email, with a copy to all other parties in the matter, to courtroom21@ventura.courts.ca.gov before 8:00 a.m. on the day set for the hearing, with a subject line that includes “SUBMISSION ON TENTATIVE”, Case Number, Title and Party. If fewer than all parties submit on the tentative, the hearing will proceed, and the tentative ruling is subject to change. The clerk cannot advise if you should still appear or not. The decision of whether to appear for a hearing is to be made by the parties and their counsel. (Dept. 21 Rules & Procedures, p. 4, § II.I.)

The following is a statement of the Court’s tentative ruling. The Court may adopt, modify or reject the tentative ruling after hearing. The tentative ruling has no legal effect unless and until adopted by the Court.

Motion: Plaintiff’s Motion for Trial Preference (Unopposed)

Tentative Ruling: Plaintiff Allan Miller’s motion for trial preference is GRANTED. Plaintiff establishes the required elements for trial preference. Defendant has filed no opposition and thus has made no showing of prejudice or any reason to deny trial preference. The Court grants the motion and sets the trial date within 120 days.

Trial is set for 10/12/26 at 1:30 p.m.

The CMC/OSC set for 7/6/26 at 8:30 am is vacated.

Notice to be given by Plaintiff counsel within two (2) court days.

1

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