DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CUD26682276·sf·Civil·Real Property
Hearing in about 5 hoursThe court provides a tentative ruling for the Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar

CP CLEMENT, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY VS. DOE 1 ET AL

Renewed Motion Of David Silverman (Code Civ.Proc. 1008(B)) For And Order To Show Cause Why The Fictitiously Named Defendants Should Not Be Dismissed; Alternatively, First Application Of A Prary Defendant For The Same Relief

Hearing date
Sep 2, 2026
Department
501
Judge
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffCP CLEMENT, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY
DefendantDOE 1
OtherDAVID SILVERMAN

Attorneys

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CUD26682276 - September 2, 2026 Hearing date: September 2, 2026 Case number: CUD26682276 Case title: CP CLEMENT, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY VS. DOE 1 ET AL Case Number: | | CUD26682276 | Case Title: | | CP CLEMENT, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY VS. DOE 1 ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-09-02 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Renewed Motion Of David Silverman (Code Civ.Proc. 1008(B)) For And Order To Show Cause Why The Fictitiously Named Defendants Should Not Be Dismissed; Alternatively, First Application Of A Prary Defendant For The Same Relief; Memorandum Of Points And Authorities; Declaration Of David Silverman | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for September 2, 2026.

Line 10. DEFENDANT DAVID SILVERMAN (NON-PARTY) Renewed Motion Of David Silverman (Code Civ.Proc. 1008(B)) For And Order To Show Cause Why The Fictitiously Named Defendants Should Not Be Dismissed | |

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