DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25CV149799·alameda·Civil·Civil
Hearing about 2 months agoGRANTED

FELLOWS, et al. vs AMERICAN PRESIDENT LINES, LLC, et al.

Ex Parte Application to request an order advancing the hearing on its motion to sever the cross-complaint

Hearing date
Jul 2, 2026
Department
18
Prevailing
Moving Party
Next hearing
Jul 28, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Ex Parte Application rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffFELLOWS
DefendantAMERICAN PRESIDENT LINES, LLC
Cross-DefendantAMPHENOL CORPORATION
Cross-ComplainantSterling Wander

Ruling

25CV149799: FELLOWS, et al. vs AMERICAN PRESIDENT LINES, LLC, et al. 07/02/2026 Hearing on Ex Parte Application to request an order advancing the hearing on its motion to sever the cross-complaint of Sterling Wander CRS# A-149799-001 in Department 18

Tentative Ruling - 07/01/2026 Patrick McKinney

Defendant/Cross-Defendant Amphenol Corporation's Ex Parte Application for Order Advancing the September 15, 2026 hearing on its Motion to Sever the Cross-Complaint is GRANTED.

The Hearing on Motion to Sever filed by AMPHENOL CORPORATION (Cross-Defendant) CRS# 322599972705 scheduled for 09/15/2026 is reset to 07/28/2026 at 01:30 PM in Department 18 at Rene C. Davidson Courthouse.

Amphenol Corporation's counsel must forthwith serve a copy of this order on all counsel of record and self-represented parties. The Court orders counsel to obtain a copy of this order from the eCourt portal.

CONTESTING THE TENTATIVE RULING: If the parties do not contest the tentative ruling, it will be adopted. Any party wishing to contest the tentative ruling must notify the court by email at Dept18@alameda.courts.ca.gov, and notify all opposing counsel or unrepresented parties by 4pm the day before the hearing.

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