DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC25625478·sf·Civil·Real Property / Housing
Hearing 10 months agoHearing Required to address the Proof of Service filed on August 15, 2025.

JOSE DANIEL AGUILAR VS. QUANG TRI NGUYEN ET AL

MOTION TO STRIKE Amended COMPLAINT

Hearing date
Oct 15, 2025
Department
501
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Strike rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffJOSE DANIEL AGUILAR
DefendantQUANG TRI NGUYEN

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CGC25625478 - October 15, 2025 Hearing date: October 15, 2025 Case number: CGC25625478 Case title: JOSE DANIEL AGUILAR VS. QUANG TRI NGUYEN ET AL Case Number: | | CGC25625478 | Case Title: | | JOSE DANIEL AGUILAR VS. QUANG TRI NGUYEN ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-10-15 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | MOTION TO STRIKE Amended COMPLAINT | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for October 15, 2025 line 4. DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE AMENDED COMPLAINT.

Hearing Required to address the Proof of Service filed on August 15, 2025. The declarant states that the motion papers were mailed on August 17, 2025, i.e. 2 days after the proof of service was filed. =(501/CFH) Parties may appear in-person, telephonically or via Zoom [Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849; Phone Dial in: (669) 254-5252]. 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