DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25CV-0208635·shasta·Civil·Civil
Hearing 7 days agoSanctions of $250 imposed

HILL, ET AL. VS. NELSON, ET AL.

Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions

Hearing date
Aug 17, 2026
Department
64
Judge
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Oct 19, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Motion for Sanctions rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$250

Parties

PlaintiffKathleen Hill

Ruling

CASE NUMBER: 25CV-0208635 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions: An Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions issued to Plaintiff Kathleen Hill and her counsel on June 2, 2026 for their failure to timely serve pleadings on the defendants as required by CRC 3.110(b). The Complaint was filed on September 8, 2025. “The complaint must be served on all named defendants and proofs of service on those defendants must be filed with the court within 60 days after the filing of the complaint.” CRC 3.110(b). It has now been over ten months and there is no Proof of Service of Summons on file. No written response to the Order to Show Cause was filed.

This matter first came on for hearing on July 13, 2026. Plaintiffs’ counsel appeared and requested a continuance. The Court continued the hearing to today’s date and directed counsel to file a declaration prior to today’s hearing. No declaration has been filed. No proof of service of summons is on file.

With no sufficient excuse for the delay, the Court will impose sanctions in the amount of $250 against Plaintiff and her counsel. The clerk is directed to prepare a separate Order of Sanctions. The Court will also issue an Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal for failure to timely serve pursuant to CRC 3.110(b) and failure to timely prosecute. Hearing on the Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal will be Monday, October 19, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 64. The clerk is directed to issue an Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal.

KUNS, ET AL. VS. ESTES-KING, ET AL.

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