DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25CV-01723·merced·Civil·Forfeiture
Hearing 12 days agoAppearance required

People vs $11,284.33

Petition for Forfeiture

Hearing date
Aug 12, 2026
Department
8
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Petition rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$11,284.33

Parties

PlaintiffPeople

Ruling

Specifically, Defendant’s UMFs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, establish the condition was open and obvious, there was no practical necessity of encountering the alleged danger, as well as that the alleged condition was trivial; see evidence cited in support of UMFs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 regarding these facts.

This shifts the burden to Plaintiff to show the existence of one or more triable issues of material fact. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2). Plaintiff in opposition does not provide evidence that disputes the above or otherwise raise a triable issue of material fact. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden.

Defendant is directed to submit a written order to the court consistent with this ruling and in compliance with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.

25CV-01723 People vs $11,284.33

Petition for Forfeiture

Appearance required.

25CV-02677 Luciano Lopez Morales vs Nathan Mininger, et al.

Status Conference re: Arbitration

Appearance required. Appear to address status of arbitration proceedings.

25CV-04818 Michael Flynn, et al. vs Grey B. Roberts, et al.

Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal – Notice of Settlement

Appearance required. Appear to address status of settlement and dismissal pursuant to the agreement announced at the last case management conference on April 20, 2026. As of August 10, 2026, no notice of settlement has been filed with the court.

Case Management Conference

Appearance required.

25CV-05991 Elisha Jasmin Mutrie-Macario, et al. vs General Motors LLC

Order to Show Cause re: Sanctions

Pursuant to the declaration of counsel, Mei Xuan, filed August 10, 2026, the Court finds GOOD CAUSE NOT TO ISSUE SANCTIONS for defense counsel’s failure to appear at the case management conference on June 15, 2026. No appearance is required.

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