DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC24617981·sf·Civil·Real Property
Hearing todayOFF CALENDAR; Second amended Complaint is stricken on the Court's own motion.

TEMPI PRIESTLY ET AL VS. SAXE MORTGAGE, NA ET AL

DEMURRER to Amended COMPLAINT

Hearing date
Aug 21, 2026
Department
501
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Demurrer rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffTempi Priestly
PlaintiffLeonard Priestly
DefendantSAXE MORTGAGE, NA
DefendantUSA NATIONAL TITLE COMPANY, INC.

Attorneys

Peter Winklerfor Plaintiff

Ruling

Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for August 21, 2026. Line 2. DEFENDANT USA NATIONAL TITLE COMPANY, INC. (ERRONEOUSLY SUED AS USA NATIONAL TITLE COMPANY) DEMURRER to Amended COMPLAINT is OFF CALENDAR. Second amended Complaint filed by Peter Winkler as counsel for "Plaintiffs Tempi Priestly, an individual, and Leonard Priestly, an individual" is stricken on the Court's own motion. Peter Winkler only substituted in as counsel for Tempi Priestly. Leonard Priestly is in pro per. Counsel may file a proper substitution of attorney and properly file a complaint on behalf of his clients.

Peter Winkler is order to comply with meet and confer requirements in the future. =(501/SKF) 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