DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC21596771·sf·Civil·Real Property
Hearing 9 months agoCONTINUED

MHYF HOLDINGS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY ET AL VS. CHRIS V. KELLY ET AL

MOTION TO STRIKE Amended COMPLAINT

Hearing date
Nov 24, 2025
Department
501
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Dec 8, 2025

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Strike rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffMHYF HOLDINGS, LLC
DefendantCHRIS V. KELLY
DefendantLARA KELLY
DefendantKELLY FAMILY TRUST

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CGC21596771 - November 24, 2025 Hearing date: November 24, 2025 Case number: CGC21596771 Case title: MHYF HOLDINGS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY ET AL VS. CHRIS V. KELLY ET AL Case Number: | | CGC21596771 | Case Title: | | MHYF HOLDINGS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY ET AL VS. CHRIS V. KELLY ET AL |

Court Date: | | 2025-11-24 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | MOTION TO STRIKE Amended COMPLAINT | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for November 24, 2025. Line 2.2. DEFENDANT CHRIS KELLY INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CO-TRUSTEE OF THE KELLY FAMILY TRUST, LARA KELLY MOTION TO STRIKE Amended COMPLAINT is continued to December 8, 2025 to be heard with other pending motions. =(501/MEW) 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 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