DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CV0006536·marin·Civil·Civil Action
Hearing about 1 month agoCONTINUED

Soo Young Kim, et al v. Harrigan Weidenmuller Company

DEMURRER

Hearing date
Jul 24, 2026
Department
L
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Oct 2, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Demurrer rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffSoo Young Kim
DefendantHarrigan Weidenmuller Company

Ruling

This matter was called on June 12, 2026, as regularly scheduled in this department. The matter was continued to July 24, 2026, at the request of Defendant, for argument.

On July 17, 2026, the parties filed a joint stipulation to request a second continuance of hearing of the demurrer to continue with settlement discussions. However, they did not file a proposed order with the stipulation.

The request is GRANTED. The hearing on Defendant’s demurrer is continued to October 2, 2026, at 130 pm in this department,.

Parties must comply with Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.10(A), (B), which provides that if a party wants to present oral argument, the party must contact the Court at (415) 444-7046 and all opposing parties by 4:00 p.m. the court day preceding the scheduled hearing. Notice may be by telephone or in person to all other parties that argument is being requested (i.e., it is not necessary to speak with counsel or parties directly.) Unless the Court and all parties have been notified of a request to present oral argument, no oral argument will be permitted except by order of the Court. In the event no party requests oral argument in accordance with Rule 2.10(B), the tentative ruling shall become the order of the court.

IT IS ORDERED that evidentiary hearings shall be in-person in Department L. For routine appearances, the parties may access Department L for video conference via a link on the court website. Kindly turn your camera on when your case is called and make sure the party or lawyer making the appearance is properly identified on the screen.

FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are responsible for ensuring that they have a good connection and that they are available for the hearing while using the virtual remote courtroom. If the connection is inadequate, the Court may proceed with the hearing in the party’s absence. If it is determined that you are diving your car during the hearing, you will be removed from the virtual courtroom. (Yes, this happens).

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