DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
23CV00741·santacruz·Civil·Civil
Hearing 17 days agoParties to appear.

KRUEGER v. FORMICO

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT

Hearing date
Aug 7, 2026
Department
Judge
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$1,000,000.00

Ruling

LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: AUGUST 7, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M.

No. 23CV00741

KRUEGER v. FORMICO

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT

Parties to appear.

At the last hearing on this motion, on May 5, 2026, the parties were ordered to take the following actions:

• Plaintiff directed to release the liens on 1100 Graham Hill Road. • Defendant directed to complete the sale of 1100 Graham Hill Road. • Defendant directed to identify a real property holding with at least $1,000,000.00 in equity to be exchanged from 1100 Graham Hill Road as security. • No liens to be recorded by defendant without Court approval. The parties are ordered to appear to provide the Court with an update as to these items as well as the status of the settlement in general.

No. 23CV02042

MANZO v. PANDEY et al.

DEFENDANTS DAVID LYNG & ASSOCIATES, INC. AND GENEVA LAWLESS’S MOTION FOR MONETARY, EVIDENTIARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS

Defendants/cross-complainants David Lyng & Associates, Inc. and Geneva Lawless’s motion is granted. The court orders plaintiffs to fully comply with its order of March 27, 2026, no later than August 21, 2026, and to pay defendants David Lyng & Associates and Geneva Lawless additional monetary sanctions of $1,000.00, payable by that same date. In the event plaintiffs again fail to timely comply with these orders, the court intends to impose evidentiary and/or terminating sanctions on motion by defendants.

Plaintiffs Michael Manzo and Cynthia Manzo (“plaintiffs”) were ordered to serve codecompliant verified responses and documents without objections to form interrogatories (set one), special interrogatories (set one), and request for production of documents (set one) no later than April 24, 2026. Further, the court deemed admitted all matters specified in the requests for admission, set one, which would become the order of the court if plaintiffs failed to serve, before the hearing on the motion, proposed code-compliant responses to the requests for admissions.

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