1. Home
  2. State Courts
  3. California
  4. Mendocino County Superior Courts
  5. Forster-Gill V Pinoleville Pomo Nation
SEARCH TIPS
"" "23STCV06307" Exact match of phrase
* negligen* Match anything after the *
( ) "motion" AND ("dismiss" OR "summary") Grouping of terms
~ "motion to dismiss"~3 Maximum number of positions allowed between matching words
AND "damages" AND "injuries" AND "relief" Both terms must appear in document
OR "modify" OR "amend" Either terms can appear in document
judge:last-name judge:Abbot Filter by a specific judge name.
party:party-name party:"Apple inc" Filter by a specific party name.
To learn more visit - https://support.trellis.law/boolean-operators
Date
"" "23STCV06307" Exact match of phrase
* negligen* Match anything after the *
( ) "motion" AND ("dismiss" OR "summary") Grouping of terms
~ "motion to dismiss"~3 Maximum number of positions allowed between matching words
AND "damages" AND "injuries" AND "relief" Both terms must appear in document
OR "modify" OR "amend" Either terms can appear in document
judge:last-name judge:Abbot Filter by a specific judge name.
party:party-name party:"Apple inc" Filter by a specific party name.
To learn more visit - https://support.trellis.law/boolean-operators

Contents

Details Case Events

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

Forster-Gill V Pinoleville Pomo Nation

Case Last Refreshed: 1 year ago

Track Case Changes
Download Docket Print Docket

filed a(n) Civil case in the jurisdiction of Mendocino County. This case was filed in Mendocino County Superior Courts .

Case Details for Forster-Gill V Pinoleville Pomo Nation

Case Number

(Subscribe to View)

Filing Date

December 21, 2018

Category

Civil

Last Refreshed

May 13, 2022

Filing Location

Mendocino County, CA

Case Events for Forster-Gill V Pinoleville Pomo Nation

Date Type Description
December 21, 2018 Tentative Ruling Pursuant to CCP Section 473(b) Defendants’ Motion to set aside Default is granted. Plaintiffs are awarded reasonable attorney fees in the amount of $22,497.75. The court finds that the fees and hours ...

Judge: 457-6345
See all events
Request redaction

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.