DecisionDepot
California Legal Research
All cases
CGC25626859·sf·Civil·Real Property / Housing
GRANTED in part

GARY ERWIN VS. BRIDGE HOUSING CORPORATION ET AL

MOTION TO STRIKE 1ST Amended COMPLAINT

Hearing date
Apr 29, 2026
Department
501
Judge
Prevailing
Mixed

Motion type

Motion to Strike

Parties

PlaintiffGARY ERWIN
DefendantBRIDGE HOUSING CORPORATION
DefendantKEN LOMBARD
DefendantREBECCA HLEBASKO
DefendantCOURTNEY MCGHEE
DefendantMAHADAYE LECOUNTE
DefendantLORAINE SEZAR
DefendantGREAT PRARIE RISK SOLUTIONS
DefendantKEN NOVACK

Ruling

Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for April 29, 2026. Line 4. DEFENDANT BRIDGE HOUSING CORPORATION, KEN LOMBARD, REBECCA HLEBASKO, COURTNEY MCGHEE, MAHADAYE LECOUNTE, LORAINE SEZAR, GREAT PRARIE RISK SOLUTIONS, KEN NOVACK MOTION TO STRIKE 1ST Amended COMPLAINT is GRANTED in part. Paragraphs 23(c), 32(c), and 48(c) only are stricken from the First Amended Complaint.

Defendants contend, and Plaintiff does not deny, that these allegations are all based solely on a cease-and-desist communication sent by Defendants' counsel, demanding Plaintiff cease certain conduct and advising him that Defendants may commence legal action against him based on said conduct. This demand, made in anticipation of potential legal action, is protected activity within the meaning of CCP 425.16, and Plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing that he can prevail on the merits of his claims based on this activity.

However, the Second, Fourth, and Seventh causes of action are each based on both this protected activity, and on other, unprotected activity. Therefore, to whatever extent Defendants' request to strike these causes of action in their entirety, such request is denied. Plaintiff's claims based on Defendants' alleged unprotected activity cannot be stricken under CCP 425.16 simply because they appear in the same causes of action as claims based on protected activity, which are properly subject to CCP 425.16.

Request for reasonable attorneys fees and costs is denied without prejudice at this time, as there is no supporting declaration regarding these fees and costs accompanying this motion. Additionally, Plaintiff is admonished to observe the appropriate page limits for all future filings. (See, e.g., California Rules of Court, 3.1113.) =(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 so notified, and the opposing party does not appear. | |

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…

Extracted by Gemini Flash 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?”

Powered by Gemini Flash Lite. Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Source

Share