DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC24612504·sf·Civil·Real Property
Hearing about 1 year agoTRANSFERRED to department 302

1341 UNION STREET TENANCY-IN-COMMON, AN VS. STEVEN SCOTT TOLLEFSRUD ET AL

MOTION TO STRIKE Amended COMPLAINT

Hearing date
Jun 20, 2025
Department
501
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Jul 18, 2025

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Strike rulings statewide →

Parties

Plaintiff1341 UNION STREET TENANCY-IN-COMMON
DefendantSTEVEN SCOTT TOLLEFSRUD
DefendantSCOTT HAUSWIRTH

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CGC24612504 - June 20, 2025 Hearing date: June 20, 2025 Case number: CGC24612504 Case title: 1341 UNION STREET TENANCY-IN-COMMON, AN VS. STEVEN SCOTT TOLLEFSRUD ET AL Case Number: | | CGC24612504 | Case Title: | | 1341 UNION STREET TENANCY-IN-COMMON, AN VS. STEVEN SCOTT TOLLEFSRUD ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-06-20 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | MOTION TO STRIKE Amended COMPLAINT | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion calendar for June 20, 2025, line 4.

Defendants Scott Hauswirth and Steven Tollefsrud's Motion to Strike Amended Complaint is TRANSFERRED to department 302 to be heard on July 18, 2025 at 9:30 a.m. per the Order of the Presiding Judge. =(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 tent ative 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