DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC25625478·sf·Civil·Real Property
Hearing 11 months agoOFF CALENDAR. No valid proof of service.

JOSE DANIEL AGUILAR VS. QUANG TRI NGUYEN ET AL

MOTION TO STRIKE Amended COMPLAINT

Hearing date
Sep 16, 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 - September 16, 2025 Hearing date: September 16, 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: | | 2025-09-16 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | MOTION TO STRIKE Amended COMPLAINT | Rulings: | | On the Real Property/Housing Court motion calendar for September 16, 2025, line 7.

Defendants' Motion to Strike Amended Complaint is OFF CALENDAR. No valid proof of service. The proof of service on file states that the papers were mailed on August 17, 2025, but was signed and filed on August 15, 2025, two days before the purported service occurred. =(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