HEARING ON ANTI-SLAPP MOTION (SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE) BY CHC GROUP INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, CHANGHO CHUNG, MIHWA BANG
1. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF BARKER VS PALM CVPS2400208 GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT BY SPRINGS AIR VICTORY CANTEEN, CORP. Tentative Ruling: Granted.
No opposition filed.
Moving party to submit proposed order consistent with the moving papers within 5 days of this order becoming final.
Moving party to provide notice pursuant to CCP 1019.5.
2. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION FOR ORDER TO SEAL CVPS2507588 MEYER VS BALON DOCUMENT(S) BY NATHANIEL B. MEYER Tentative Ruling: Granted.
No opposition filed.
The court orders the original complaint filed 10/9/25 is ordered sealed until further order of the court.
Operative complaint is now the 1st Amended Complaint.
Plaintiff to provide notice pursuant to CCP 1019.5.
3. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME LASR ENTERPRISES INC., HEARING ON ANTI-SLAPP MOTION A CALIFORNIA (SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE) BY CORPORATION VS CHC CVPS2601090 CHC GROUP INC., A CALIFORNIA GROUP INC., A CORPORATION, CHANGHO CHUNG, CALIFORNIA MIHWA BANG CORPORATION Tentative Ruling: Matter taken off calendar pursuant to stipulation filed May 14, 2026.
4. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT OF SMITH, AN INDIVIDUAL VS AMBER NICOLE SMITH, AN CVPS2601155 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INDIVIDUAL BY SOUTHERN GAS COMPANY CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY Tentative Ruling: Moot.
Based on court’s ruling on accompanying demurrer, the instant motion to strike is moot.
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?”