DecisionDepot
California Legal Research
All cases
CGC23610243·sf·Civil·Real Property / Housing
GRANTED with leave to amend

PATRICK KOHLHAAS ET AL VS. JOHN WALDUM ET AL

MOTION TO STRIKE Amended COMPLAINT

Hearing date
May 11, 2026
Department
501
Judge
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Motion to Strike

Parties

PlaintiffPATRICK KOHLHAAS
DefendantJOHN WALDUM
DefendantEquity Residential Management LLC
DefendantArchstone Daggett Place LLC

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CGC23610243 - May 11, 2026 Hearing date: May 11, 2026 Case number: CGC23610243 Case title: PATRICK KOHLHAAS ET AL VS. JOHN WALDUM ET AL Case Number: | | CGC23610243 | Case Title: | | PATRICK KOHLHAAS ET AL VS. JOHN WALDUM ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-05-11 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | MOTION TO STRIKE Amended COMPLAINT | Rulings: | | On the Real Property / Housing motion calendar for May 11, 2026, line 2. Defendants Equity Residential Management LLC and Archstone Daggett Place LLC's Motion to Strike Amended Complaint is GRANTED with leave to amend to allege facts in support of punitive damages against each corporate defendant. =(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…

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