DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25CV112071·alameda·Civil·Civil
Hearing about 2 months agoCONTINUED

NEWELL, AN INDIVIDUAL vs OJEDA, AN INDIVIDUAL

Compliance Hearing re: Dismissal

Hearing date
Jun 30, 2026
Department
16
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Aug 4, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffNEWELL
DefendantOJEDA

Ruling

25CV112071: NEWELL, AN INDIVIDUAL vs OJEDA, AN INDIVIDUAL 06/30/2026 Compliance Hearing re: Dismissal in Department 16

Tentative Ruling - 06/29/2026 Victoria Kolakowski

ORDER RE: CASE MANAGEMENT

The Court has ordered the following after review of the case.

The Compliance Hearing re: Dismissal scheduled for 03/10/2026 is continued to 08/04/2026 at 02:30 PM in Department 16 at Rene C. Davidson Courthouse.

The Court orders counsel to obtain a copy of this order from the eCourt portal.

If a party does not timely contest the foregoing Tentative Ruling and appear at the hearing, the Tentative Ruling will become the order of the court.

How Do I Contest a Tentative Ruling? Find your case in eCourt at https://eportal.alameda.courts.ca.gov/ using “Case Search” or “Calendar Search” (after you log in) Select the Tentative Rulings Tab Select "Click to Contest this Ruling" Enter your name and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue. Select "Proceed"

You must also notify the department via email (Dept16@alameda.courts.ca.gov) and opposing parties in a single email by no later than 4:00 PM, one court day before the scheduled hearing.

Please provide this information to any Opposing Parties:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT THE HEARING/CONFERENCE WILL BE IN- PERSON WITH THE OPTION TO APPEAR REMOTELY.

COUNSEL AND PARTIES MAY APPEAR EITHER IN-PERSON IN DEPARTMENT 16 AT THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING OR BY REMOTELY THROUGH THE ZOOM PLATFORM. ZOOM LOG-IN INFORMATION FOR DEPARTMENT 16 IS BELOW.

Join ZoomGov Meeting https://alameda-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16024053017 Meeting ID: 160 2405 3017

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