DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CUD26682252·sf·Civil·Real Property/Housing
Hearing about 2 months agoOFF CALENDAR

BRAD SJOLIN PROPERTIES, LLC VS. JEFFREY JOHNSON ET AL

MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT

Hearing date
Jul 2, 2026
Department
501
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Strike rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffBRAD SJOLIN PROPERTIES, LLC
DefendantJEFFREY JOHNSON

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CUD26682252 - July 2, 2026 Hearing date: July 2, 2026 Case number: CUD26682252 Case title: BRAD SJOLIN PROPERTIES, LLC VS. JEFFREY JOHNSON ET AL Case Number: | | CUD26682252 | Case Title: | | BRAD SJOLIN PROPERTIES, LLC VS. JEFFREY JOHNSON ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-07-02 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for July 2, 2026. Line 12.

DEFENDANT JEFFREY JOHNSON MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT is OFF CALENDAR. No competent proof of service on file. (CRC 3.1300(c).) Proof of service on file indicates that the documents were given to a messenger for delivery. There is no declaration of the messenger reflecting that the documents were delivered. =(501/CFH)

Parties may appear in-person, telephonically or via Zoom (Video - Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849; or Phone Dial in: (669) 254-5252; Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849).

Parties who intend to appear at the hearing must give notice to opposing parties and the court promptly, but no later than 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing unless the tentative ruling has specified that a hearing is required.

Notice of contesting a tentative ruling shall be provided by sending an email to the court to Department501ContestTR@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. A party may not argue at the hearing if the opposing party is not notified, and the opposing party does not appear. | |

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share