DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC25626859·sf·Civil·Real Property / Housing
Hearing 4 months agoCONTINUED

GARY ERWIN VS. BRIDGE HOUSING CORPORATION ET AL

Defendants' Motion to Strike Portions of Amended Complaint

Hearing date
Apr 16, 2026
Department
501
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Apr 29, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Strike rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffGARY ERWIN
DefendantBRIDGE HOUSING CORPORATION

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CGC25626859 - April 16, 2026 Hearing date: April 16, 2026 Case number: CGC25626859 Case title: GARY ERWIN VS. BRIDGE HOUSING CORPORATION ET AL Case Number: | | CGC25626859 | Case Title: | | GARY ERWIN VS. BRIDGE HOUSING CORPORATION ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-04-16 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion | Rulings: | | On the Real Property/Housing Law and Motion calendar for April 16, 2026, line 5.

Defendants' Motion to Strike Portions of Amended Complaint is continued to April 29, 2026.

The Court received courtesy copies of several supplemental filings on April 15, 2026. The Court has not had time to review these filings. The Court makes no determination as to the propriety of these various filings at this time. =(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