DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
23-CIV-01369·sanmateo·Civil·Civil
Hearing about 1 month agoCONTINUED

PATRICIA MORGOVSKY VS. ANETTA KALK MIGDAL AND AS A TRUSTEE OF MIGDAL 2016 LIVING TRUST, ET AL

OMNIBUS MOTION OF PLAINTIFF NAUM MORGOVSKY TO FILE NUNC PRO TUNC SUBSTITUTION OF PLAINTIFF PATRICIA MORGOVSKY AND TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’ ANSWERS AND ENTER THEIR DEFAULTS

Hearing date
Jul 23, 2026
Department
2
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Aug 13, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffPATRICIA MORGOVSKY
DefendantANETTA KALK MIGDAL AND AS A TRUSTEE OF MIGDAL 2016 LIVING TRUST

Attorneys

PRO PERfor Plaintiff
WILLIAM F. STANGERfor Defendant

Ruling

7/23/2026 – Law and Motion Calendar Judge: Honorable Mark A. McCannon – Department 2 Page 2 of 3

Case Title / Nature of Case

2:00 PM LINE: 1 23-CIV-01369 PATRICIA MORGOVSKY VS. ANETTA KALK MIGDAL AND AS A TRUSTEE OF MIGDAL 2016 LIVING TRUST, ET AL

PATRICIA MORGOVSKY PRO PER ANETTA KALK MIGDAL AND AS A TRUSTEE OF MIGDAL 2016 LIVING TRUST WILLIAM F. STANGER

OMNIBUS MOTION OF PLAINTIFF NAUM MORGOVSKY TO FILE NUNC PRO TUNC SUBSTITUTION OF PLAINTIFF PATRICIA MORGOVSKY AND TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS' ANSWERS AND ENTER THEIR DEFAULTS

TENTATIVE RULING:

MATTER IS CONTINUED TO AUGUST 13, 2026 AT 9:30 ON JUDGE MCCANNON’S SPECIAL SET CALENDAR. PLEASE CHECK THE COURT’S WEBSITE FOR ITS TENTATIVE RULING ON THE “SPECIAL SET MATTERS TENTATIVE RULINGS” LINK THE DAY PRIOR AT 3:00 PM.

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