DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25CV119492·alameda·Civil·Case Management
Hearing 18 days agoCONTINUED

DOE vs ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, INC., et al.

Initial Case Management Conference

Hearing date
Aug 6, 2026
Department
520
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Nov 17, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffDOE
DefendantALBERTSONS COMPANIES, INC.

Attorneys

Ruling

25CV119492: DOE vs ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, INC., et al. 08/06/2026 Initial Case Management Conference in Department 520

Tentative Ruling - 08/05/2026 Jamilah A. Jefferson

The Court makes the following order after review of the case without a hearing:

The Court entered a stay of the litigation on January 23, 2026 and ordered Plaintiff's counsel to inform the Court and parties of the "status of Plaintiff's condition in the subsequent CMC statement in advance of the continued CMC . . . . " Counsel has not informed the Court of the status of Plaintiff's condition.

In addition, the Court is also now aware from a notice filed in the case on July 28, 2026 that Plaintiff's counsel (Donald Charles Schwartz) is "suspended from the practice of law in the State of California for a period two years, commencing May 14, 2026 . . . . " However, a substitution of attorney was filed on August 3, 2026. It appears that Plaintiff now has counsel who can practice in the State of California. Nonetheless, the Court remains unaware of the status of Plaintiff's condition.

Subsequent CMC statements MUST apprise the Court of the status of Plaintiff's condition and/or whether the stay should be lifted.

If no status update is provided, the Court will issue an order to show cause (OSC) re dismissal.

The case remains stayed pending further order of the Court.

The Initial Case Management Conference scheduled for 08/06/2026 is continued to 11/17/2026 at 11:00 AM in Department 520 at Hayward Hall of Justice.

Clerk is directed to serve copies of this order, with proof of service, to counsel and to selfrepresented parties of record. The Court orders counsel to obtain a copy of this order from the eCourt portal.

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