DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CUD25680886·sf·Civil·Unlawful Detainer
Hearing 6 months agoDENIED

1169-1173B SOUTH VAN NESS AVENUE, LLC VS. LEONEL QUINTANO RAMIREZ ET AL

MOTION TO STRIKE AMENDED COMPLAINT

Hearing date
Feb 13, 2026
Department
501
Prevailing
Plaintiff

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Strike rulings statewide →

Parties

Plaintiff1169-1173B SOUTH VAN NESS AVENUE, LLC
DefendantLEONEL QUINTANO RAMIREZ

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CUD25680886 - February 13, 2026 Hearing date: February 13, 2026 Case number: CUD25680886 Case title: 1169-1173B SOUTH VAN NESS AVENUE, LLC VS. LEONEL QUINTANO RAMIREZ ET AL Case Number: | | CUD25680886 | Case Title: | | 1169-1173B SOUTH VAN NESS AVENUE, LLC VS. LEONEL QUINTANO RAMIREZ ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-02-13 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | MOTION TO STRIKE Amended COMPLAINT | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for February 13, 2026 line 10.

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE AMENDED COMPLAINT is DENIED. No authority for the proposition that the Court may excise selected text from an exhibit to the First Amended Complaint. The Notice of Termination of Tenancy that was served on Defendants before this action was filed cannot be changed. =(501/CFH)

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