CORNELL JAMES VS. NOAH G. SCHWARTZ ET AL
MOTION TO STRIKE Amended COMPLAINT
Motion type
Parties
Attorneys
Ruling
Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for September 3, 2026. Line 3. DEFENDANT JOHN STEWART COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA STOCK CORPORATION (ERRONEOUSLY SUED AS THE JOHN STEWART COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA STOCK CORPORATION) MOTION TO STRIKE Amended COMPLAINT is OFF CALENDAR.
Parties are ordered to comply with CCP 435.5 and meet and confer in good faith "in person, by telephone, or by video conference." Based on the declaration of Ryan Murray counsel for defendant attempted to meet and confer on several occasions, receiving no response.
Parties shall complete meet and confer efforts by September 18, 2026 on a mutually agreed upon date and time. If parties cannot agree on a date and time, parties shall meet and confer in-person on September 9, 2026 at 400 McAllister Street, San Franciso, CA 94102.
Thereafter, if necessary and proper Defendant may file a motion to strike (no additional fee) or Plaintiff may file an amended complaint to address issues discussed during meet and confer. =(501/CFH)
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
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?”