DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25CV-06874·merced·Civil·Forfeiture
Hearing 2 months agoCONTINUED

People vs $118,165.00 US Currency

Status Conference; Motion for Default Judgment

Hearing date
Jun 24, 2026
Department
8
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Jul 29, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$118,165.00

Parties

PlaintiffPeople
Defendant$118,165.00 US Currency

Ruling

25CV-06874 People vs $118,165.00 US Currency

Status Conference

CONTINUED ON THE COURT’S OWN MOTION to July 29, 2026, at 8:15 a.m. in Courtroom 8 to trail the request for entry of default judgment.

Motion for Default Judgment

Plaintiff is ordered to submit for this Court’s consideration the proper forms for a request for entry of default judgment including an order for this Court’s signature which did not accompany the motion (sic) for default judgment. Upon submission of a proper order, it will be submitted for this Court’s review. If the default judgment is entered, the continued hearing dates will be vacated.

CONTINUED to July 29, 2026, at 8:15 a.m. in Courtroom 8 in light of the above order.

26CV-01949 Jake LeBeaux vs City of Atwater, et al.

Hearing: In Camera

Appearance required.

26CV-03068 Sierra Ceja vs Xochitl Gomez Duarte

Order to Show Cause re: Restraining Order

Appearance required. Respondent filed a response to the request for a civil harassment restraining order.

26CV-03091 Vanessa Mercado vs Danielle Navarro

Order to Show Cause re: Restraining Order

Appearance required. No proof of service of the notice of hearing on Respondent has been filed with the court.

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