DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC24620489·sf·Civil·Contract
Hearing about 1 year agoGRANTED

ACRISURE, LLC, A CALIFORNIA VS. 1000 VAN NESS LP, ET AL

MOTION TO STRIKE Amended COMPLAINT

Hearing date
Jul 3, 2025
Department
301
Judge
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Strike rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffACRISURE, LLC
Defendant1000 VAN NESS LP
DefendantJAMES KILPATRICK
DefendantLAKESIDE INVESTMENT COMPANY LLC

Ruling

Matter on the Law & Motion/Discovery Calendar for Thursday July 3, 2025, line 5, 2 - DEFENDANTS JAMES KILPATRICK, LAKESIDE INVESTMENT COMPANY LLC'S MOTION TO STRIKE 1ST Amended COMPLAINT

Defendants' (James Kilpatrick and Lakeside Investment Company, LLC) motion to strike the First Amended Complaint ("FAC") is granted with 20 days leave to amend.

*THE COURT'S FULL AND COMPLETE TENTATIVE RULING HAS BEEN EMAILED TO COUNSEL*

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept301tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.

Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept301tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.

The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion or Discovery Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address.

= (302/CVA) | |

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