DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CUD23671159·sf·Civil·Real Property/Housing
Hearing 10 months agoOFF CALENDAR. No valid service to Cross Complainant Brent Kirsten, who is in pro per as of August 2024.

200 GREEN STREET LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED VS. BRENT KIRSTEN ET AL

Notice Of Motion To Dismiss First Amended Cross-Complaint

Hearing date
Oct 20, 2025
Department
501
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

Plaintiff200 GREEN STREET LLC
DefendantBRENT KIRSTEN
OtherJJD Property Management
OtherMaven Commercial Inc.
OtherDerose & Appelbaum

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CUD23671159 - October 20, 2025 Hearing date: October 20, 2025 Case number: CUD23671159 Case title: 200 GREEN STREET LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED VS. BRENT KIRSTEN ET AL Case Number: | | CUD23671159 | Case Title: | | 200 GREEN STREET LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED VS. BRENT KIRSTEN ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-10-20 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion To Dismiss First Amended Cross-Complaint | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Motion calendar for October 20, 2025, line 6.

Cross Defendants 200 Green Street LLC, JJD Property Management, Maven Commercial Inc., and Derose & Appelbaum's Motion to Dismiss First Amended Cross-Complaint is OFF CALENDAR. No valid service to Cross Complainant Brent Kirsten, who is in pro per as of August 2024. =(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