We are checking for the latest updates in this case. We will email you when the process is complete.

Julio C Mireles Vs. Whataburger Restaurants Llc

Case Last Refreshed: 4 weeks ago

Mireles, Julio C, filed a(n) Personal Injury - Torts case represented by Alejandro C. Martinez, against Whataburger Restaurants Llc, in the jurisdiction of Hidalgo County, TX, . Hidalgo County, TX Superior Courts 332nd District Court.

Case Details for Mireles, Julio C v. Whataburger Restaurants Llc

Filing Date

June 28, 2024

Category

Injury Or Damage - Other (Oca)

Last Refreshed

July 02, 2024

Practice Area

Torts

Filing Location

Hidalgo County, TX

Matter Type

Personal Injury

Filing Court House

332nd District Court

Case Complaint Summary

This complaint is an original petition and disclosure filed by Julio C. Mireles against Whataburger Restaurants LLC in the District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas. The complaint alleges that on February 16, 2024, while at a Whataburger restaurant in ...

Parties for Mireles, Julio C v. Whataburger Restaurants Llc

Plaintiffs

Mireles, Julio C

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Alejandro C. Martinez

Defendants

Whataburger Restaurants Llc

Case Documents for Mireles, Julio C v. Whataburger Restaurants Llc

Original Petition (OCA)

Date: June 28, 2024

Citation Issued

Date: July 01, 2024

Case Events for Mireles, Julio C v. Whataburger Restaurants Llc

Type Description
Docket Event Citation Issued
Citation Issued
Docket Event Citation Whataburger Restaurants LLC Unserved
Docket Event Original Petition (OCA)
See all events

Related Content in Hidalgo County

Case

Jesse Thomas Leary, Jr. VS. Brownsville Trucking Company Inc., Modesto Gonzalez
Jul 24, 2024 | Injury or Damage - Motor Vehicle (OCA) | C-3429-24-H

Case

Jose Morales VS. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company
Jul 22, 2024 | Injury or Damage - Other (OCA) | C-3356-24-C

Case

Christina Segura VS. Florestela Montelongo
Jul 24, 2024 | Injury or Damage - Motor Vehicle (OCA) | C-3423-24-E

Case

Victor Rodriguez, Irma Castro VS. STATE FARM LLOYDS
Jul 23, 2024 | Injury or Damage - Other (OCA) | CL-24-3165-I

Ruling

Renee Sanchez vs Felipe Rodriguez, et al.
Jul 23, 2024 | 20CV-00156
20CV-00156 Renee Sanchez v. Felipe Rodriguez, et al. Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal-Notice of Settlement Appearance required. Remote appearances are permitted. Parties who wish to appear remotely must contact the clerk of the court at (209) 725-4111 to arrange for a remote appearance. Appear to address the status of the settlement.

Ruling

Illinois Midwest Insurance Agency vs Al Ramos, et al.
Jul 26, 2024 | 21CV-02077
21CV-02077 Illinois Midwest Insurance Agency v. Al Ramos, et al. Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal-Notice of Settlement Appearance required. Parties who wish to appear remotely must contact the clerk of the court at (209) 725-4111 to seek permission and arrange for a remote appearance. Court has received, read, and considered the Declaration of Sara Rodriguez. Based on its content, the OSC re: Settlement continued to September 26, 2024, at 8:15am. If a Dismissal is on file before the continued hearing date, no appearance necessary as the matter will automatically drop from calendar.

Ruling

GALLEPOSO vs WATKINS
Jul 24, 2024 | CVSW2205101
MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT, CVSW2205101 GALLEPOSO VS WATKINS DEFAULT BY UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION Tentative Ruling: The Motion to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment is GRANTED in part. The default judgment is set aside since Defendant-in-Intervention has filed an Answer and is not in default and default judgment cannot be entered against any jointly liable Defendants. USAA has not established any basis to set aside the default against Defendant since that default is not binding on USAA and no judgment can be entered. The requests for sanctions are denied.

Ruling

ESTEBAN SAMORA SERRANO VS. ANTOLINI LUIGI&C. S.P.A. ET AL
Jul 22, 2024 | CGC24614333
Matter on the Law & Motion calendar for Monday, July 22, 2024, Line 9. 2 - DEFENDANT COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION's MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT. Granted in part. (The Court's complete tentative ruling has been emailed to the parties.) For the 9:30 a.m. Law & Motion calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing. Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested. The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/CK)

Ruling

Ricky Jones et al. vs Goldriver Orchards, Inc., a California Corporation
Jul 23, 2024 | STK-CV-UPI-2022-0003649
2022-3649 Jones Motion to Bifurcate Trial 7/25/2024 Defendant brings a Moton to Bifurcate Trial as to Try Issues of Liability and Damages Separately. Having read the moving papers, the opposition papers, and reply papers, the court issues the following tentative ruling: Defendant argues that bifurcation is warranted to save time, judicial resources, avoid jury confusion, and avoid prejudice to defendant. Plaintiffs oppose bifurcation and points out that bifurcation would actually lead to longer trials and require numerous witnesses to have to testify twice. Plaintiffs also argue that any confusion or perceived prejudice may be dealt with via jury instructions, as is common in the majority of cases that go to jury trial. When the case was set for trial both sides provided a trial estimate of 7 days. With what the court knows regarding the issues in dispute as well as the high caliber of the trial counsel for both sides, the court agrees this is a realistic estimate to try this case to verdict. The Court does not believe that bifurcation would promote judicial economy. If liability is established the court believes the opposite, the bifurcated trial will be longer, require the use of additional judicial resources, and result in an inconvenience to the witnesses, jury, and court staff. In regards to jury confusion and/or perceived prejudice to moving defendant, these arguments are not uncommon in every civil trial where liability is contested. The court has steadfast confidence in the citizens of San Joaquin County and is certain any confusion and/or perceived prejudice can be addressed adequately by jury instructions as well as argument by the experienced trial teams. For these reasons, the court denies the motion under CCP 598. The also court declines to exercise its discretion under CCP 1048 and order separate trial of liability. The court denies the request to bifurcate the trial on issue of liability and damages. Plaintiff to prepare the order for Court signature. If oral argument is requested, the parties are to appear remotely via the Dept. 11B bridge line by dialing (209)992-5590 enter Bridge No. 6941 and Passcode 5564. WATERS 7/24/2024 Directions for Contesting or Arguing the Tentative Ruling: Tentative rulings for Law and Motion will be posted electronically by 1:30 p.m. the day before the hearing. Any party wishing to contest or argue the tentative ruling must email the court at civilcourtclerks@sjcourts.org. that they intend to appear remotely no later than 4:00 PM on the day before the scheduled hearing. The Department, Case number, Case Name, and party’s name must be in the header of the email. The email must include the Department, Case number, Case Name, Motion, party’s name and email, date and time of the hearing, issues they plan to argue, and that they have informed the opposing party. The party must also notify affected counsel, or unrepresented parties, that they intend to appear, no later than 4:00 PM on the day before the scheduled hearing. Unless the Court and opposing counsel have been notified, the tentative ruling shall become the ruling of the Court without oral argument. To conduct a remote appearance, follow the instructions below. There is a dedicated conference bridge lines for Dept. 11B. Call into dedicated conference bridge line at the time set for the hearing. To attend the remote hearing in Dept. 11B: Call into (209) 992-5590, then follow the prompts and use the Bridge # 6941 and Pin # 5564. The courtroom clerk will make announcements and the Judge will call the calendar. Please mute your phones when you are not speaking, and remember to unmute your phone when you are speaking. At this time, we are not able to provide information over the phone. To communicate with the Courtroom Clerk of Dept. 11B, please email questions to civilcourtclerks@sjcourts.org, indicating in the title of the email the Department, Case number, Case Name, and party’s name. A Courtroom Clerk will return your email. To ensure the Court has your most recent contact information, if you have not already done so, please register your email address and mobile number on the Court’s website under Online Services, Attorney Registration. (You do not have to be an attorney to register.) We thank you for your cooperation, assistance, patience and flexibility.

Ruling

Lien vs. Ashby
Jul 27, 2024 | 23CV-0203071
LIEN VS. ASHBY Case Number: 23CV-0203071 This matter is on calendar for trial setting. The Court notes that the litigation is now at issue. The Court designates this matter as a Plan II case and intends on setting the matter for trial no later than February 19, 2025. Neither party has posted jury fees. The parties are granted 10 days leave to post jury fees. A failure to post jury fees in that time will be deemed a waiver of the right to a jury. The parties are ordered to meet and confer prior to the hearing regarding proposed dates for trial. An appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.

Ruling

Edwards vs. Tyrrell Resources, Inc., et al.
Jul 26, 2024 | 23CV-0202609
EDWARDS VS. TYRRELL RESOURCES, INC., ET AL. Case Number: 23CV-0202609 This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of the case. The matter is at issue. The Court designates this matter as a Plan II case and intends on setting it for trial no later than December 17, 2024. Defendants have posted jury fees. Plaintiff has not. Plaintiff is granted ten days leave in which to post jury fees. A failure to post jury fees in that time will be deemed a waiver of the right to a jury. The parties are ordered to meet and confer prior to the hearing regarding proposed dates for trial. An appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.

Ruling

John Poslof vs Brandon Soto et al.
Jul 29, 2024 | 19CV-01229
19CV-01229 John Poslof v. Brandon Soto, et al. Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal-Notice of Settlement Appearance required. Remote appearances are permitted. Parties who wish to appear remotely must contact the clerk of the court at (209) 725-4111 to arrange for a remote appearance. A Notice of Settlement of the Entire Case was filed 60 days ago on May 29, 2024. Appear to address the status of finalizing the settlement and filing a Dismissal of the complaint and cross-complaint.

Document

Oscar Cantu VS. Roxanna De La Joya
Jan 22, 2024 | Singleterry, Luis | Injury or Damage - Motor Vehicle (OCA) | C-0332-24-A

Document

Leonides Pena-Guajardo VS. Southern Star Transport, LTD., Homero Salinas Guerra, Juan Arizpe
Jul 12, 2021 | Librado Keno Vasquez | Injury or Damage - Motor Vehicle (OCA) | C-2716-21-I

Document

NINFA SOLIS AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF GILBERTO SOLIS, DECEASED VS. VICTORIA FONTENOT
Jan 04, 2022 | Leticia Lopez | Injury or Damage - Motor Vehicle (OCA) | C-0010-22-H

Document

KEVIN TKACZEK, INDIRA TKACZEK VS. JAVIER ANGUIANO, SNAP INSURANCE SERVICE, LLC
May 08, 2023 | Rodolfo Gonzalez | Injury or Damage - Motor Vehicle (OCA) | CL-23-1898-A

Document

Ana Maria Avila, A A VS. Mariangel Guerrero
Mar 15, 2024 | Alberto Garcia | Injury or Damage - Motor Vehicle (OCA) | CL-24-1240-F

Document

Bertha Uballe VS. San Juana Garcia
Jul 21, 2022 | Gonzalez, Rodolfo | Injury or Damage - Motor Vehicle (OCA) | CL-22-2826-A

Document

Armando Sanchez VS. Germania Farm Mutual Insurance Association
Nov 14, 2023 | Injury or Damage - Other (OCA) | CL-23-4648-G