Steven Rocheville v. Neely Segerstrom
Defendant’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint
Motion type
Parties
Ruling
9:00 25CV459301 TD Bank USA, N.A., as Order on Plaintiff’s Motion to deem 3 Successor in Interest to the truth of all matters specified in Target National Bank Requests for Admissions, Set One, to v. be admitted by Defendant Serena Salazar Marquez, et al.
See Line 3 below for complete tentative ruling. After the hearing, the Court will prepare and file the formal order.
9:00 25CV467856 Steven Rocheville Order on Defendant’s Demurrer to 4 v. Plaintiff’s Complaint Neely Segerstrom As Plaintiff under Code of Civil Procedure Section 472(a) timely filed a First Amended Complaint on June 1, 2026, Defendant’s Demurrer to the original Complaint is now moot and OFF CALENDAR. Defendant is free to answer, demur, or otherwise respond to the First Amended Complaint within the time permitted by the Code of Civil Procedure. See C.C.P. § 472 (a) (“time for responding to an amended pleading shall be computed from the date of service of the amended pleading”).
SO ORDERED.
Line 4 Case Name: Steven Rocheville v. Neely Segerstrom
Case No.: 25CV467856
See ORDER above. [As Plaintiff under Code of Civil Procedure Section 472(a) timely filed a First Amended Complaint on June 1, 2026, Defendant’s Demurrer to the original Complaint is now moot and OFF CALENDAR. Defendant is free to answer, demur, or otherwise respond to the First Amended Complaint within the time permitted by the Code of Civil Procedure. See C.C.P. § 472 (a) (“time for responding to an amended pleading shall be computed from the date of service of the amended pleading”).]
19
Cited authorities
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?”