DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CUD26682276·sf·Civil·Real Property / Housing
Hearing todayCONTINUED

CP CLEMENT, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY VS. DOE 1 ET AL

Amended Notice Of Hearing On Renewed Motion For Order To Show Cause Re Fictitiously Named Defendants (Code Civ. Proc., 1008(B))

Hearing date
Sep 9, 2026
Department
501
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Sep 22, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffCP CLEMENT, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY
DefendantDOE 1 ET AL

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CUD26682276 - September 9, 2026 Hearing date: September 9, 2026 Case number: CUD26682276 Case title: CP CLEMENT, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY VS. DOE 1 ET AL Case Number: | | CUD26682276 | Case Title: | | CP CLEMENT, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY VS. DOE 1 ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-09-09 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Amended Notice Of Hearing On Renewed Motion For Order To Show Cause Re Fictitiously Named Defendants (Code Civ. Proc., 1008(B)) | Rulings: | | On the Real Property / Housing Motion calendar for September 9, 2026, line 21.

Non-Party's Amended Notice of Hearing on Renewed Motion for Order to Show Cause Re: Fictitiously Named Defendants is continued to September 22, 2026 to be heard with motion in related case.=(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