DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25CECG01711·fresno·Probate·Construction/Defect
Hearing about 2 months agoOverruled/Denied as moot

Nelson Properties v. Affordable Roofing et al.

By Defendant APOC Roof Systems, Corp. on Demurrer to the Complaint and Motion to Strike

Hearing date
Jul 2, 2026
Department
502
Judge
Prevailing
Plaintiff
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Demurrer rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffNelson Properties
DefendantAffordable Roofing
DefendantAPOC Roof Systems, Corp.

Ruling

(49) Tentative Ruling

Re: Nelson Properties v. Affordable Roofing et al. Superior Court Case No. 25CECG01711

Hearing Date: July 2, 2026 (Dept. 502)

Motion: By Defendant APOC Roof Systems, Corp. on Demurrer to the Complaint and Motion to Strike

If oral argument is timely requested, it will be entertained on Wednesday, July 15 2026, at 3:30 p.m. in Department 502.

Tentative Ruling:

To overrule the demurrer as moot. (Code Civ. Proc., § 472, subd. (a).)

To deny the motion to strike as moot. (Code Civ. Proc., § 472, subd. (a).)

Explanation:

A party may amend its pleading any time after a demurrer or motion to strike is filed but before the demurrer or motion to strike is heard if the amended pleading is filed and served no later than the date for filing an opposition. (Code Civ. Proc., § 472, subd. (a).) Here, plaintiff Nelson Properties timely filed a first amended complaint on June 17, 2026 in lieu of an opposition to the demurrer filed by defendant APOC Roof Systems, Corp. The matter is now mooted by a superseding pleading, the demurrer is overruled and the motion to strike is denied.

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.

Tentative Ruling

Issued By: lmg on 7-1-26. (Judge’s initials) (Date)

5

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