Which Lawyers Win Before Your Judge?

About 41,000 new cases are filed in U.S. courts every weekday. Behind each one is a person trying to understand what happens next. Here’s what the public record can tell you about this matter — and about the people deciding it.

  • Know Your Judge

    Every judge has a pattern — what they grant, what they deny, how they handle the kinds of motions your case will see.

  • Know The Lawyers

    See an attorney’s actual track record — case types, courts, and how they’ve performed in front of this judge before.

  • Know Your Court

    Every courthouse has its own rhythm — filing-to-resolution times, common dispositions, how often cases like yours settle.

Is this judge more likely to rule for the plaintiff or the defendant in cases of this type?

How has your attorney actually performed in front of this judge?

AICasePredict surfaces patterns from public court records. We don’t predict outcomes.

Full Analytics Report

  • Complete case narrative
  • Judge details and rulings
  • Case disposition and outcome
  • All docket entries
  • Related cases and filings
$20
One-time purchase
Photo of Kern Co Non Criminal Court

Court

Kern Co Non Criminal Court

California

View Court Profile

Case Information

Filed 2022-08-11
Status 10/03/2023 Conference
Type 15 Cv Other Employment Civil Unlimited
Docket 34 entries
Disposition Pending

Parties

Plaintiff Ameer Gassan Hammad, An Individual, On Behalf Of Himself And All Others Similarly Situated
Defendant Motor City Sales & Service | Motor City Buick Gmc | Motor City Lexus Of Bakersfield, A California Corporation
Photo of Hon. Zulfa David

Judge

Hon. Zulfa David

Kern County (CA)

California

View Judge Profile

Lawyers

Docket Entries

  1. View Document Notice of Assignment and OSC re CRC 3110 and CMC (N18C) Comment Re: 3.110 Hearing Date: 12/01/2022 Hearing Time: 8:30 AM Hearing Department/Division: J
  2. Served 08/22/20229:34 AM Served 08/24/202211:35 AM Served 08/24/202211:35 AM
  3. Comment as to Motor City Sales & Service, dba Motor City Auto Center, via sub service
  4. Comment as to Motor City Buick GMC, via personal service
  5. Comment as to Motor City Lexus of Bakersfield, a California Corporation, via personal service
  6. Comment of Meghan Higday in Support of Stipulated Request to Dismiss Class Claims And for Leave to File Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint
  7. Comment Joint Stip to Dismiss Class Claims and for Leave to File Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint
  8. Comment as to Joint Stipulation to Dismiss class Claims and for leave to file Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint, Declaration of Meghan Higday, Prop Order to Dismiss Class Claims and for leave to filed Plaintiffs first amended Complaint
  9. Judicial Officer Bradshaw, J. Eric Comment Order to Dismiss Class Claims and For Leave to File Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint Causes of Action 1 through 11 are dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff is granted leave to file and servce a First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff shall separately serve and file with the court the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, a copy of which is attached to the stipulation filed with the court 10-14-2022. Defendant may file a responsive pleading to the First Amended Complaint within thirty (30) days of being served with a copy of this order approving and entering this stipulation and the First Amended Complaint.
  10. Comment NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER (1) COMPELLING ARBITRATION OF PLAINTIFFS INDIVIDUAL PAGA CLAIM AND (2) DISMISSING PLAINTIFFS RESPRESENTATIVE PAGA CLAIM, OR, ALTERNATIVELY, STAYING THE CASE PENDING COMPLETION OF ARBITRATION; DECLARATION OF RYA (Motions)
  11. Comment **Paid**Motor City Sales & Service; remainder of first app. fee $375 for motion to compel arbitration
  12. Comment Plaintiff Evidentiary Objections to Defendants' Motion to Compel Plaintiffs Claims to Arbitration (Objections)
  13. Comment Declaration of Plaintiff Ameer Gassan Hammad in Support of Plaintiff???s Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Compel Plaintiff???s Claims to Arbitration (Declarations)
  14. Comment Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendants Motion for Order (1) Compelling Arbitration of Plaintiffs Individual PAGA Claim and (2) Dismissing Plaintiff???s Representative PAGA Claim or, Alternatively, Staying the Case Pending Completion of Arbitration (Oppositions)
  15. View Document Notice of Assignment and OSC re CRC 3110 and CMC (N18C) Judicial Officer Bradshaw, J. Eric Hearing Time 8:30 AM Cancel Reason Proof Of Service Filed
  16. Comment DEFENDANT MOTOR CITY SALES AND SERVICE???S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER (1) COMPELLING ARBITRATION OF PLAINTIFF???S INDIVIDUAL PAGA CLAIM AND (2) DISMISSING PLAINTIFF???S REPRESENTATIVE PAGA CLAIM, OR ALTERNATIVELY, STAYING THE CASE PENDING COMPLET (Comment)
  17. Comment DECLARATION OF DEBORAH LORRAINE DURAN IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT MOTOR CITY SALES AND SERVICE'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER (1) COMPELLING ARBITRATION OF PLAINTIFF'S INDIVIDUAL PAGA CLAIM AND (2) DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S REPRESENTATIVE PAGA CLAIM (Declarations)
  18. Comment REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT MOTOR CITY SALES AND SERVICE???S REPLY TO MOTION FOR ORDER (1) COMPELLING ARBITRATION OF PLAINTIFF???S INDIVIDUAL PAGA CLAIM AND (2) DISMISSING PLAINTIFF???S RESPRESENTATIVE PAGA CLAIM, OR, ALTERNATIVELY, (Requests)
  19. Comment Proof of Service (Comment)
  20. Comment Proof of Service (Comment)
  21. Judicial Officer Zulfa, David Hearing Time 8:30 AM Result Held Comment 11/15/22 DEF. MOTOR CITY SALES & SERVICE MOTION FOR ORDER (1) COMPELLING ARBITRATION OF PLAINTIFF S INDIVIDUAL PAGA CLAIM AND (2) DISMISSING PLAINTIFF S RESPRESENTATIVE PAGA CLAIM, OR, ALTERNATIVELY, STAYING THE CASE PENDING COMPLETION OF ARBITRATION; DECLARATION OF RYAN S. RIDDLES IN SUPPORT
  22. Comment Re: [proposed] Order Granting Motion for Order (1) Compelling Arbitration of Plaintiff's Individual Paga Claim and (2) Denied Dismissing Plaintiff's Representative Paga Claim, or, Alternatively, Staying the Case Pending Completion of Arbitration
  23. Judicial Officer Zulfa, David Comment Granting Motion For Order (1) Compelling Arbitration of Plaintiff's Individual Paga Claim and (2) Denied Dismissing Plaintiff's Representative Paga Claim, or, Alternatively, Staying the Case Pending Completion of Arbitration Upon consideration of the Motion, and all supporting documents, and after considering all arguments presented by the parties, the Court HEREBY ORDERS THAT: 1. Defendant's Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 2. Plaintiff Ameer Gassan Hammad ("Plaintiff") shall arbitrate his individual PAGA claim against Defendant pursuant to that certain agreement dated April 29, 2022. 3. Defendant's Request to Dismiss Plaintiff's representative PAGA claim is DENIED without prejudice. 4. This Action is hereby stayed for at least six (6) months to determine whether the California Supreme Court issues an Opinion in the Adolph v. Uber case, which is likely to determine whether Plaintiff has or lacks standing as to the representative PAGA component when the individual component of his PAGA claim was ordered to arbitration. 5. The Court hereby sets an Order to Show Cause re: Status of Arbitration and Status of the California Supreme Court's Opinion in Adolph v. Uber for July 5, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. IT IS SO ORDERED.
  24. View Document Notice of Assignment and OSC re CRC 3110 and CMC (N18C) Judicial Officer Zulfa, David Hearing Time 8:30 AM Cancel Reason Other
  25. Judicial Officer Zulfa, David Hearing Time 8:30 AM Result Held Comment status of arbitration
  26. View Document Rejection/Correction Notice Comment Re: Notice of Related Cases, please note filing is not in compliance with California Rule of Court 3.300, form CM-015 is to be filed in each case.
  27. Judicial Officer Zulfa, David Hearing Time 8:30 AM Cancel Reason Court's Own Motion Comment stay effective 01/04/2023 -continued from 07/05/2023 - pending arbitration - NO AMENDED ANSWER OR PROOFS FILED AS TO REMAINING DEFENDANTS
  28. Judicial Officer Zulfa, David Hearing Time 8:30 AM Comment STAY EFFECTIVE 01/04/2023 - CONTINUED FROM 07/05/2023 - TO ANSWER OR AMENDED PROOFS FILED AS TO REMAINING DEFENDANTS

See the patterns behind this case

The free view above tells you who’s in the room. The detailed reports below show how the room tends to behave — using the same public records lawyers quietly rely on before every hearing.

  • Judge Report

    How this judge has ruled in cases like yours — case mix, motion outcomes, and historical docket. Judges set the floor of what’s possible in your courtroom.

  • Attorney vs Judge Report

    Everything in the Judge Report, plus how your attorney has actually performed in front of this judge. Attorneys move you off the floor — or don’t.

One-time payment, no subscription. Reports describe past public court activity — they don’t predict outcomes and they aren’t legal advice.

Get Free Case Details

Enter your email to receive case information including parties, docket entries, and status updates.

By submitting you agree to our Privacy Policy.

Need this case removed? Enter your email above — the confirmation email includes a case removal link.

Full Analytics Report

  • Complete case narrative
  • Judge details and rulings
  • Case disposition and outcome
  • All docket entries
  • Related cases and filings
$20
One-time purchase

Legal Analytics Has Been Featured In

Featured in Forbes, Bloomberg, The New Yorker, Above The Law, American Bar Association, and more