PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ORDER OF POSSESSION
LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: MAY 15, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M.
TENTATIVE RULINGS ARE NOT POSTED IN UNLAWFUL DETAINER CASES
Notice to prevailing parties: Local Rule 2.10.01 requires you to submit a proposed formal order incorporating, verbatim, the language of any tentative ruling – or attaching and incorporating the tentative by reference - or an order consistent with the announced ruling of the Court, in accordance with California Rule of Court 3.1312. Such proposed order is required even if the prevailing party submitted a proposed order prior to the hearing with two exceptions: (1) in unopposed matters where the moving party has provided a detailed proposed order or JCC form of order, or (2) where the tentative is simply to “grant”. Failure to comply with Local Rule 2.10.01 may result in the imposition of sanctions following an order to show cause hearing, if a proposed order is not timely filed.
No. 25CV00025
PAJARO REGIONAL FLOOD MGMT. AGENCY v. PVUSD, et al.
(UNOPPOSED) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ORDER OF POSSESSION (EMINENT DOMAIN)
The motion is granted. Based upon the pleadings, plaintiff Pajaro Regional Flood Management Agency is entitled to possess the Additional Property by eminent domain for the project’s public purpose and it has deposited the probable compensation for the property condemned. (See Code of Civil Procedure section 1240.410, and the November 12, 2025 Resolutions of Necessity, Resolution No. 2025-11, adopted by PRFMA Board.)
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”