The Honorable Craig G. Riemer

Riverside County Superior Court, Department 1

Biography

The Hon. Craig G. Riemer is a judge for the Riverside County Superior Court in California. He was appointed to the bench by former Governor Gray Davis in 2003. He filled the vacancy created by the retirement of the Hon. Janice McIntyre (Ret.).

Judge Riemer graduated with honors with his B.A. in political science from the University of California, Riverside in 1977. During college, he worked as an intern for the Riverside County Public Defender's Office as well as for former California State Assemblyman Dennis Mangers. He went on to earn his J.D. from the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law in 1980.

Riemer began his legal career as an associate at the law firm of Swarner and Fitzgerald. During his short time there, Riemer practiced general civil litigation. In 1982, he became a partner at Babcock and Cappelli, where his practice involved real property and commercial litigation. He also practiced as an associate at Dye, Thomas, Luebs, and Mort from 1985 to 1990, where he continued in his practice of civil litigation.

He left private practice in 1990, to serve as a senior appellate court attorney for the Hon. Art W. McKinster, an associate justice with the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District. During his thirteen-years there, Riemer helped research and draft opinions for the court concerning civil, criminal, juvenile, probate and family law appeals. He was serving in that capacity at the time of his appointment to the Superior Court in 2003.

While on the bench, Judge Riemer has presided over criminal, civil, and probate trials. He has also presided on the appellate panel and the drug court.

His memberships have included the California Judges Association, the Leo A. Deegan Inn of Court, the Riverside chapter of the American Inns of Court, and past-president of the Riverside County Bar Association.

He has served on the board of directors for the Conference of Delegates of California Bar Associations and also served as chair of the Conference's Resolution's Committee.

His professional committees have included the Temporary Judges Committee, the Civil Law Advisory Committee, and the Riverside Superior Court's Executive Committee.

He has served as a volunteer for the Riverside Youth Center and as a presiding judge for collegiate mock trial competitions.

Riemer has also taught continuing legal education programs for the California Center for Judicial Education and Research.

A native of California, he was born in Fullerton and moved to Riverside from Los Angeles in 1980.

Recent Rulings by Hon. Craig G. Riemer

  • LEON VS WAL-MART

    Jan 19, 2021 |  Riverside County

    The unnoticed motion for approval of the proposed PAGA settlement is once again denied. Any further application shall be brought in the form of a noticed motion and shall fully comply with the CMO. Analysis: The declaration of plaintiff’s counsel does not comply with sections E.6. and E.7. of the case mana...

  • VIVA CAPITAL FUNDING LLC VS REVIVE MEDICAL LLC

    Jan 19, 2021 |  Riverside County

    The unopposed motion of the judgment creditor is denied. Analysis: The moving party failed to give notice of the motion to the judgment debtors 16 court days plus two calendar days prior to the hearing date.

    ...

  • YOPP VS WELLS FARGO BANK N.A.

    Jan 13, 2021 |  Riverside County

    The bank’s demurrer to the First Amended Complaint is sustained with 21 days’ leave to amend as to the First and Fifth Causes, but otherwise sustained without leave to amend. Analysis: A. 1st cause of action (violation of HBOR) Plaintiffs allege Defendant violated the following sections of the HBOR: Civil ...

  • WALSH VS THE CHOPPER GALLERY, INC

    Jan 13, 2021 |  Riverside County

    The defendants’ request for judicial notice is granted. The plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is denied. The defendants’ demurrer is sustained as to the 2nd and 3rd causes of action with 28 days leave to amend, but otherwise overruled. Analysis: The documents of which the plaintiff seeks judicial not...

  • CARMICHAEL VS CAFE SEVILLA OF RIVERSIDE INC

    Jan 12, 2021 |  Riverside County

    The plaintiffs’ motion for relief from the forfeiture of their right to a jury trial is granted. That portion of the trial setting order setting this for a nonjury trial is vacated. The clerk shall re-calendar this as a jury trial at plaintiffs’ request. Analysis: The declaration of plaintiffs’ counsel dem...

  • CUMMINGS VS DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

    Jan 07, 2021 |  Riverside County

    The petition for writ of mandate is denied. Analysis: A traditional writ of mandate under C.C.P. §1085 lies “to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins, as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or to compel the admission of a party to the use and enjoyment of a right ...

  • HAYNES VS SAN JACINTO VILLAS

    Jan 07, 2021 |  Riverside County

    The motion of Conam to strike the 3rd and 4th causes of action of the complaint is denied. Analysis: In light of the ruling on the demurrers to the same causes of action, the motion to strike is moot, and is denied on that basis.

    ...

  • HIGHSTREET VS HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA

    Jan 06, 2021 |  Riverside County

    The demurrer of Hyundai to the First Amended Complaint of Highstreet is overruled. Hyundai shall file and serve its answer with 14 days. The proposed order is signed as modified to conform to this ruling. Analysis: The statute of limitations for a breach of implied warranty under Song-Beverly is four years...

  • HARTSON VS SAKAMOTO

    Jan 06, 2021 |  Riverside County

    The plaintiffs’ motion for relief from their forfeiture of their right to a jury trial is granted. The proposed order is signed.

    ...

  • OPPORTUNITY VS COMMERCIAL SOLAR

    Dec 31, 2020 |  Riverside County

    The motion to intervene is granted. The intervenor may file her answer in intervention in the form submitted on December 16, 2020. The proposed order is signed as modified to conform to that ruling. Analysis: The revised proposed answer is an improvement over the original version, but defects appear to rem...

  • MSCI 2007-IQ16 CA KMART PROPERTIES LLC VS RIVERSIDE RETAIL INVESTORS LLC

    Dec 31, 2020 |  Riverside County

    The receiver’s unopposed motion is granted. The proposed order is signed as modified by striking paragraphs 6 and 12, for which no authority was cited, and that portion of paragraph 3 that purports to approve acts and transactions not disclosed in the motion.

    ...

  • PHILLIPS V. STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Dec 29, 2020 |  Riverside County

    The motion for relief from forfeiture is granted as to the plaintiff. The Court has no tentative as to the motion by the defendant. Analysis: The declaration from plaintiff’s counsel clearly indicates that the plaintiff’s failure to post jury fees is the result of Mr. Oliphant’s ignorance of the requiremen...

  • BAKER VS TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL, INC

    Dec 29, 2020 |  Riverside County

    The motion of Dr. Rahman and Rancho Family Medical Group, Inc., for summary judgment is denied. Analysis: In light of the declaration of Dr. Schiffman, triable issues of material facts exist as to whether the Moving Defendants acted within the professional standard of medical care and whether their actions...

  • KOONTZ VS FCA US LLC

    Dec 24, 2020 |  Riverside County

    The plaintiff’s motion for relief from his forfeiture of his right to a jury trial is granted. The proposed order is granted. The trial setting is changed from a court trial to a jury trial at plaintiff’s request. Analysis: After considering the moving and opposing papers, including both the declaration of...

  • VISCIOTTI VS ELITE COLLECTIONS, LLC

    Dec 22, 2020 |  Riverside County

    Same as above

    ...

  • SMITH VS RAO

    Dec 22, 2020 |  Riverside County

    The unopposed motion is granted. The dismissal entered 9-3-19 is vacated. Defendant Bumby shall file and serve a response to the First Amended Complaint no later than January 22, 2021.

    ...

  • VISCIOTTI VS ELITE COLLECTIONS, LLC

    Dec 22, 2020 |  Riverside County

    In light of the default entered as to Elite, and of the order entered 12-21-20, denying Elite’s motion for relief from that default, the motion is denied.

    ...

  • GILLESPIE VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Dec 21, 2020 |  Riverside County

    The Court regrets that it does not yet have a tentative ruling. Counsel should appear by telephone prepared to argue. The Court will attempt to email a tentative ruling to counsel before the end of the weekend.

    ...

  • DEL REFUGIO MUNOZ VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA INC

    Dec 21, 2020 |  Riverside County

    The defendant’s motion to strike is granted without leave to amend. Analysis: In light of the Court’s ruling, sustaining without leave to amend the demurrer to the fourth cause of action, and the fact that the fourth cause of action is the only one that alleges fraud or any other basis for punitive damages...

  • SANDOVAL VS NIPPON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA HEARING TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE AS TO MICHAEL SANDOVAL AMENDED

    Dec 21, 2020 |  Riverside County

    The unopposed applications of Mr. Jacobs and Mr. Lavigne to be admitted pro hac vice are once again denied. Analysis: There is no declaration or other evidence authenticating the documents attached to the application concerning payments made to the State Bar of California.

    ...

  • TD AUTO FINANCE LLC VS AZIZ

    Dec 15, 2020 |  Riverside County

    The plaintiff’s application for writ of attachment is granted. The plaintiff shall submit a proposed order forthwith.

    ...

  • VISCIOTTI V. ELITE COLLECTIONS, LLC

    Dec 14, 2020 |  Riverside County

    The application by defendant Elite Collections, LLC, for relief from the default entered against it on October 29, 2020, is denied. Analysis: Elite relies on Code of Civil Procedure sections 425.10, 425.11, 471.5 and 580, none of which provide for or otherwise discuss relief from default. Although relief i...

  • KARDANI VS LOUK

    Dec 14, 2020 |  Riverside County

    The plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the sanction order issued on 11-10-20 is denied. Analysis: On 6-19-20 and again on 8-19-20, plaintiffs filed a CMS that described the action as one seeking, inter alia, damages for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, and fr...

  • CITY OF CORONA & KANG

    Dec 14, 2020 |  Riverside County

    The Court regrets that it does not yet have a tentative ruling on this matter. The parties shall be prepared to argue.

    ...

  • See More Results

Recent Rulings by Hon. Craig G. Riemer

  • LEON VS WAL-MART

    Jan 19, 2021 |  Riverside County

    The unnoticed motion for approval of the proposed PAGA settlement is once again denied. Any further application shall be brought in the form of a noticed motion and shall fully comply with the CMO. Analysis: The declaration of plaintiff’s counsel does not comply with sections E.6. and E.7. of the case mana...

  • VIVA CAPITAL FUNDING LLC VS REVIVE MEDICAL LLC

    Jan 19, 2021 |  Riverside County

    The unopposed motion of the judgment creditor is denied. Analysis: The moving party failed to give notice of the motion to the judgment debtors 16 court days plus two calendar days prior to the hearing date.

    ...

  • YOPP VS WELLS FARGO BANK N.A.

    Jan 13, 2021 |  Riverside County

    The bank’s demurrer to the First Amended Complaint is sustained with 21 days’ leave to amend as to the First and Fifth Causes, but otherwise sustained without leave to amend. Analysis: A. 1st cause of action (violation of HBOR) Plaintiffs allege Defendant violated the following sections of the HBOR: Civil ...

  • WALSH VS THE CHOPPER GALLERY, INC

    Jan 13, 2021 |  Riverside County

    The defendants’ request for judicial notice is granted. The plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is denied. The defendants’ demurrer is sustained as to the 2nd and 3rd causes of action with 28 days leave to amend, but otherwise overruled. Analysis: The documents of which the plaintiff seeks judicial not...

  • CARMICHAEL VS CAFE SEVILLA OF RIVERSIDE INC

    Jan 12, 2021 |  Riverside County

    The plaintiffs’ motion for relief from the forfeiture of their right to a jury trial is granted. That portion of the trial setting order setting this for a nonjury trial is vacated. The clerk shall re-calendar this as a jury trial at plaintiffs’ request. Analysis: The declaration of plaintiffs’ counsel dem...

  • CUMMINGS VS DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

    Jan 07, 2021 |  Riverside County

    The petition for writ of mandate is denied. Analysis: A traditional writ of mandate under C.C.P. §1085 lies “to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins, as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or to compel the admission of a party to the use and enjoyment of a right ...

  • HAYNES VS SAN JACINTO VILLAS

    Jan 07, 2021 |  Riverside County

    The motion of Conam to strike the 3rd and 4th causes of action of the complaint is denied. Analysis: In light of the ruling on the demurrers to the same causes of action, the motion to strike is moot, and is denied on that basis.

    ...

  • HIGHSTREET VS HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA

    Jan 06, 2021 |  Riverside County

    The demurrer of Hyundai to the First Amended Complaint of Highstreet is overruled. Hyundai shall file and serve its answer with 14 days. The proposed order is signed as modified to conform to this ruling. Analysis: The statute of limitations for a breach of implied warranty under Song-Beverly is four years...

  • HARTSON VS SAKAMOTO

    Jan 06, 2021 |  Riverside County

    The plaintiffs’ motion for relief from their forfeiture of their right to a jury trial is granted. The proposed order is signed.

    ...

  • OPPORTUNITY VS COMMERCIAL SOLAR

    Dec 31, 2020 |  Riverside County

    The motion to intervene is granted. The intervenor may file her answer in intervention in the form submitted on December 16, 2020. The proposed order is signed as modified to conform to that ruling. Analysis: The revised proposed answer is an improvement over the original version, but defects appear to rem...

  • MSCI 2007-IQ16 CA KMART PROPERTIES LLC VS RIVERSIDE RETAIL INVESTORS LLC

    Dec 31, 2020 |  Riverside County

    The receiver’s unopposed motion is granted. The proposed order is signed as modified by striking paragraphs 6 and 12, for which no authority was cited, and that portion of paragraph 3 that purports to approve acts and transactions not disclosed in the motion.

    ...

  • PHILLIPS V. STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Dec 29, 2020 |  Riverside County

    The motion for relief from forfeiture is granted as to the plaintiff. The Court has no tentative as to the motion by the defendant. Analysis: The declaration from plaintiff’s counsel clearly indicates that the plaintiff’s failure to post jury fees is the result of Mr. Oliphant’s ignorance of the requiremen...

  • BAKER VS TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL, INC

    Dec 29, 2020 |  Riverside County

    The motion of Dr. Rahman and Rancho Family Medical Group, Inc., for summary judgment is denied. Analysis: In light of the declaration of Dr. Schiffman, triable issues of material facts exist as to whether the Moving Defendants acted within the professional standard of medical care and whether their actions...

  • KOONTZ VS FCA US LLC

    Dec 24, 2020 |  Riverside County

    The plaintiff’s motion for relief from his forfeiture of his right to a jury trial is granted. The proposed order is granted. The trial setting is changed from a court trial to a jury trial at plaintiff’s request. Analysis: After considering the moving and opposing papers, including both the declaration of...

  • VISCIOTTI VS ELITE COLLECTIONS, LLC

    Dec 22, 2020 |  Riverside County

    Same as above

    ...

  • SMITH VS RAO

    Dec 22, 2020 |  Riverside County

    The unopposed motion is granted. The dismissal entered 9-3-19 is vacated. Defendant Bumby shall file and serve a response to the First Amended Complaint no later than January 22, 2021.

    ...

  • VISCIOTTI VS ELITE COLLECTIONS, LLC

    Dec 22, 2020 |  Riverside County

    In light of the default entered as to Elite, and of the order entered 12-21-20, denying Elite’s motion for relief from that default, the motion is denied.

    ...

  • GILLESPIE VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Dec 21, 2020 |  Riverside County

    The Court regrets that it does not yet have a tentative ruling. Counsel should appear by telephone prepared to argue. The Court will attempt to email a tentative ruling to counsel before the end of the weekend.

    ...

  • DEL REFUGIO MUNOZ VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA INC

    Dec 21, 2020 |  Riverside County

    The defendant’s motion to strike is granted without leave to amend. Analysis: In light of the Court’s ruling, sustaining without leave to amend the demurrer to the fourth cause of action, and the fact that the fourth cause of action is the only one that alleges fraud or any other basis for punitive damages...

  • SANDOVAL VS NIPPON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA HEARING TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE AS TO MICHAEL SANDOVAL AMENDED

    Dec 21, 2020 |  Riverside County

    The unopposed applications of Mr. Jacobs and Mr. Lavigne to be admitted pro hac vice are once again denied. Analysis: There is no declaration or other evidence authenticating the documents attached to the application concerning payments made to the State Bar of California.

    ...

  • TD AUTO FINANCE LLC VS AZIZ

    Dec 15, 2020 |  Riverside County

    The plaintiff’s application for writ of attachment is granted. The plaintiff shall submit a proposed order forthwith.

    ...

  • VISCIOTTI V. ELITE COLLECTIONS, LLC

    Dec 14, 2020 |  Riverside County

    The application by defendant Elite Collections, LLC, for relief from the default entered against it on October 29, 2020, is denied. Analysis: Elite relies on Code of Civil Procedure sections 425.10, 425.11, 471.5 and 580, none of which provide for or otherwise discuss relief from default. Although relief i...

  • KARDANI VS LOUK

    Dec 14, 2020 |  Riverside County

    The plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the sanction order issued on 11-10-20 is denied. Analysis: On 6-19-20 and again on 8-19-20, plaintiffs filed a CMS that described the action as one seeking, inter alia, damages for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, and fr...

  • CITY OF CORONA & KANG

    Dec 14, 2020 |  Riverside County

    The Court regrets that it does not yet have a tentative ruling on this matter. The parties shall be prepared to argue.

    ...

  • See More Results

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.