DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
23CV-02352·merced·Civil·Sanctions / Case Management
Hearing 2 months agoVACATED

Harinne Singh, et al. vs Kevin Moreno, et al.

Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions

Hearing date
Jun 18, 2026
Department
8
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Mar 8, 2027

Motion type

Browse all Motion for Sanctions rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffHarinne Singh
DefendantKevin Moreno

Attorneys

Stuart R. Chandlerfor Plaintiff

Ruling

627 W. 21st Street, Merced

Thursday, June 18, 2026 8:15 a.m.

The following tentative rulings shall become the ruling of the court unless a party gives notice of intention to appear as follows: 1. You must call (209) 725-4240 to notify the court of your intent to appear.

2. You must give notice to all other parties before 4:00 p.m. of your intent to appear. Per California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1), failure to do both items 1 and 2 will result in no oral argument. Note: Notifying CourtCall (the court’s telephonic appearance provider) of your intent to appear does not satisfy the requirement of notifying the court.

Case No. Title / Description

23CV-02352 Harinne Singh, et al. vs Kevin Moreno, et al.

Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions

VACATED. The Court finds GOOD CAUSE NOT TO ORDER SANCTIONS upon reviewing the declaration filed by attorney Stuart R. Chandler, filed June 10, 2026.

Case Management Conference

CONTINUED ON THE COURT’S OWN MOTION to March 8, 2027, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 8 to allow time for counsel to complete the necessary paperwork and arrangements for a request for entry of default judgment, default having been entered on January 6, 2025.

24CV-03915 People vs $77,993.48 U.S. Currency

Status Conference

Appearance required.

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