DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CUD26681447·sf·Civil·Real Property/Housing
Hearing 2 months agoGRANTED, with leave to amend within 5 days of notice of entry of order

7630 GEARY, LLC VS. JAMES CADDICK ET AL

MOTION TO STRIKE Amended COMPLAINT

Hearing date
Jun 17, 2026
Department
501
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Strike rulings statewide →

Parties

Plaintiff7630 GEARY, LLC
DefendantJAMES CADDICK

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CUD26681447 - June 17, 2026 Hearing date: June 17, 2026 Case number: CUD26681447 Case title: 7630 GEARY, LLC VS. JAMES CADDICK ET AL Case Number: | | CUD26681447 | Case Title: | | 7630 GEARY, LLC VS. JAMES CADDICK ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-06-17 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | MOTION TO STRIKE Amended COMPLAINT | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for June 17, 2026. Line 10.

DEFENDANT JAMES CADDICK MOTION TO STRIKE Amended COMPLAINT is GRANTED, with leave to amend within 5 days of notice of entry of order for Plaintiff to include an explanation for the change in the attached exhibit.

This matter will be heard in department 505 by the Honorable Michelle Tong at 1:30 p.m. per the order of the presiding judge. =(505/MT)

Parties may appear in-person, or via Zoom Video Conference (Meeting ID: 160 4132 4666 Passcode: 872834).

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 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