DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC25631020·sf·Civil·Real Property / Housing
Hearing 5 months agoCONTINUED

AIMEE GEORGE VS. OHAGAN MEYER ET AL

Amended Notice Of Motion And Special Motion To Strike Complaint And Causes Of Action Therein Pursuant To Cal. Civ. Proc. Section 425.16 [Anti-Slapp]

Hearing date
Mar 27, 2026
Department
501
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Apr 22, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Anti-SLAPP Motion rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffAIMEE GEORGE
DefendantOHAGAN MEYER
DefendantJOSEPH LORDAN
DefendantDENNIS STRAZULO
DefendantLEAJE MORRIS

Ruling

Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for March 27, 2026. Line 7. DEFENDANT OHAGAN MEYER, JOSEPH LORDAN, DENNIS STRAZULO, LEAJE MORRIS Amended Notice Of Motion And Special Motion To Strike Complaint And Causes Of Action Therein Pursuant To Cal. Civ. Proc. Section 425.16 [Anti-Slapp] is continued to April 22, 2026. On March 23, 2026 a new filing was made in conjunction with this motion. This is not sufficient time for the Court to review filings. The Court makes no determination as to the propriety of such filing.

No additional filings are allowed before the hearing. =(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…
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