Serena Raquel Murillo

“ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Judge Serena R. Murillo for MOTION to Dismiss 9 , Report and Recommendation (Issued) 26 . IT IS ORDERED that the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. 9, is granted and that Judgment be entered denying the Petition and dismissing this action without prejudice. (hr)”

“JUDGMENT by Judge Serena R. Murillo, Related to: R&R - Accepting Report and Recommendations 29 . IT IS ADJUDGED that the petition is DENIED and this action is dismissed without prejudice. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (hr)”

“ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO REMAND TO SUPERIOR COURT AND FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS 12 19 by Judge Serena R. Murillo Granting in part and denying in part 12 MOTION to Remand Case to State Court Gr anting in part and Denying in part 19 MOTION to Remand Case to State Court: The Court, having considered Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand, Defendant's Opposition, and Plaintiffs' Reply, hereby GRANTS IN PART the Motion and ORDERS as fol lows: 1. The case is hereby REMANDED to the Riverside County Superior Court; and 2. Defendant Bristol Hospice is ORDERED to pay to counsel for Plaintiff the sum of $5,771.50. (see document for further details) MD JS-… [truncated]”

“JUDGMENT by Judge Serena R. Murillo. The Court, having granted Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of Defendants on all claims, Dkt. 42 , hereby ORDERS as follows: 1. Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants City of Azusa, Andrew Avalos, and Rocky Wenrick on all of Plaintiff Joseph Cruz Hernandez-Pereira's claims; and 2. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The parties shall bear their own fees and costs. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (lom)”

“MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER ENTERING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AS TO RESPONDENTS TONYA ANDREWS, MOISES BECERRA, KRISTI NOEM, PAM BONDI by Judge Serena R. Murillo. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 1. Respondents, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and other persons who are in active concert or participation with Respondents shall not remove Petitioner to a third country, i.e., a country other than the countries designated as the countries of removal in Petitioner's final order of removal, without written notice to both Petitioner and Petitioner's counsel in a language the Petitioner can understand. Following notice, Petitioner must be given a meaningful opp… [truncated]”

“ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 2 by Judge Serena R. Murillo. For the above reasons, the Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is GRANTED, IN PART. The Court ORDERS as follows:1. Respondents, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and other persons who are in active concert or participation with Respondents are ORDERED to provide Petitioner with an informal interview by December 10, 2025, as required under 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(3). Respondents are further ORDERED to submit a declaration from the ICE official who conducted the interview by December 12, 2025. 2. This order will remain in effect until December 17, 2025, at 5:00 p.m. This … [truncated]”

“ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PETITIONER'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 2 by Judge Serena R. Murillo. Accordingly, Petitioner has not met his burden of showing he is entitled to temporary injunctive relief. For the above reasons, the Ex Parte Application is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (lom)”

“ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PETIONER'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 2 by Judge Serena R. Murillo. For the above reasons, Petitioner's Ex Parte Application 2 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Respondents' untimely Response to the Ex Parte Application 9 is STRICKEN. *See Order for details* (gga)”

“ORDER DENYING SECOND EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 18 by Judge Serena R. Murillo. For the reasons stated above, Petitioner has not made a clear showing that she is likely to succeed, or has a fair chance of success, on the merits of her claim that her supervised release order was improperly revoked. Accordingly, the Second Application for TRO is DENIED. The court orders petitioners to show cause in writing as to why the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus should not be dismissed as moot. Petitioner must file her response on or before March 20, 2026. Respondents shall thereafter respond on or before March 27, 2026. Petitioners may reply on or before March 31, 2026. The… [truncated]”

“ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND 30 by Judge Serena R. Murillo. Accordingly, the Court finds eight of the nine factors weigh in favor of joinder. Coupled with the strong presumption against removal, the Court exercises its di scretion to permit joinder of FERC. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e). Because joinder of FERC destroys this Court's jurisdiction over this action, Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is GRANTED. This case is REMANDED to Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-20-25-01471848-CU-PN-CJC. FERC's Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. 32, is DENIED AS MOOT. MD JS-6. Case Terminated. (lom)”

“JUDGMENT by Judge Serena R. Murillo, Related to: R&R - Accepting Report and Recommendations 15 . The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (hr)”

“ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND AND DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION 11 19 by Judge Serena R. Murillo. Accordingly, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action and must remand this removed action. Thus, Plaintiff Alvarez's Motion to Remand is GRANTED. Dkt. 19. This action is REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, Case No. 30-2025-01486816-CU-OE-CXC. Defendant Albertsons' Motion for Consolidation is DENIED AS MOOT. Dkt. 11. MD JS-6. Case Terminated. (lom)”