DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
24CV-0206492·shasta·Civil·Real Property
Hearing in about 7 hoursDENIED without prejudice

JACKSON VS. COLLINS, ET AL.

Motion for Leave to File First Amended Cross-Complaint

Hearing date
Sep 8, 2026
Department
63
Judge
Prevailing
Opposing Party

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffJames Jackson
Cross-ComplainantJeremiah Jese Brooke
DefendantJames Collins

Ruling

CASE NUMBER: 24CV-0206492 Tentative Ruling on Motion for Leave to File First Amended Cross-Complaint: Cross-Complainant Jeremiah Jese Brooke moves for an order granting leave to file a First Amended Cross Complaint to: 1) include information about the Litigation Guarantee in this action and to reference and/or specifically name lienholders as crossdefendants; 2) add James Collins, deceased, through his Estate or Personal Representative as a cross-defendant; 3) specify unknown cross-defendants as those with interests adverse to Cross-Complainant Jeremiah Jese Brooke.

The motion was originally noticed for July 27, 2026, however, it was not timely noticed. At the request of Defendant, the matter was continued for a hearing today. Defendant filed a Notice of Continued Hearing date on August 13, 2026, however, it reflects service on Plaintiff James Jackson directly when Defendant should have served Plaintiff’s counsel of record. Although a Motion to be Relieved was granted on July 27, 2026, Plaintiff is still represented by counsel. Notice of Entry of Order for the Motion to be Relieved was filed on August 25, 2026, which is after Defendant served Plaintiff.

Additionally, the attached Order is an unfiled and unsigned copy of the proposed Order. Plaintiff must be served with a copy of the actual Order filed in this matter. Plaintiff’s counsel remains as counsel of record until Plaintiff is served with the Order executed on July 27, 2026 and Notice of Entry of Order is filed.

Without proper notice to Plaintiff, the motion is DENIED without prejudice. Defendant provided a proposed Order that will be modified to reflect the Court’s ruling.

JOHNSON VS. FISHER

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