DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC24620192·sf·Civil·Real Property
Hearing about 1 year agoMOOT

NEVILLE WRIGHT VS. TURK STREET INVESTORS LLC ET AL

Notice Of Motion And Motion For Leave-To File Second Amended Complaint

Hearing date
Jun 17, 2025
Department
501
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffNEVILLE WRIGHT
DefendantTURK STREET INVESTORS LLC

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CGC24620192 - June 17, 2025 Hearing date: June 17, 2025 Case number: CGC24620192 Case title: NEVILLE WRIGHT VS. TURK STREET INVESTORS LLC ET AL Case Number: | | CGC24620192 | Case Title: | | NEVILLE WRIGHT VS. TURK STREET INVESTORS LLC ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-06-17 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion And Motion For Leave-To File Second Amended Complaint | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion calendar for June 17, 2025, line 5.

Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint is MOOT. This motion is moot because the Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend in the June 11, 2025 order granting Defendant's Motion to Strike First Amended Complaint. =(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