DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CUD26682250·sf·Civil·Unlawful Detainer
Hearing in about 4 hoursDENIED without prejudice

JONES KONG TOM VS. DEIDRA CAHUA ET AL

MOTION TO STRIKE Amended COMPLAINT

Hearing date
Sep 8, 2026
Department
501
Judge
Prevailing
Plaintiff

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Strike rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Parties

PlaintiffJONES KONG TOM
DefendantDEIDRA CAHUA
DefendantPILAR PAYTON

Ruling

Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for September 8, 2026. Line 4. DEFENDANT DEIDRA CAHUA, PILAR PAYTON MOTION TO STRIKE Amended COMPLAINT is DENIED without prejudice.

Motion is based upon, and specifically cites to, defects in Exhibit A to the Request for Judicial Notice, which are not present. Contrary to the statement in Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice, Exhibit A is not a true and correct copy of the Third Amended Complaint for Unlawful Detainer filed in this action, which per Defendants' Memorandum was filed on August 11, 2026. Exhibit A bears a file stamp dated May 18, 2026, and does not purport to be an amended complaint. Request for Judicial Notice of Exhibit A is therefore denied. =(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

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