DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
24CV-0206492·shasta·Civil·Property Dispute
Hearing 28 days agoDENIED/CONTINUED and GRANTED

Jackson v. Collins, et al.

Motion for Leave to File First Amended Cross Complaint; Motion to be Relieved

Hearing date
Jul 27, 2026
Department
63
Judge
Prevailing
Mixed
Next hearing
Sep 8, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffJames Jackson
Cross-ComplainantJeremiah Jese Brooke
DefendantJames Collins

Attorneys

Elizondofor Cross-Complainant
Douglas B. Jacobs(Jacobs, Anderson, Cecil and Wieder, LLP)for Plaintiff

Ruling

CASE NUMBER: 24CV-0206492 Tentative Ruling on Motion for Leave to File First Amended Cross Complaint: Cross-Complainant Jeremiah Jese Brooke moves for an order granting leave to file a First Amended Cross Complaint to: 1) include information about the Litigation Guarantee in this action and to reference and/or specifically name lienholders as crossdefendants; 2) add James Collins, deceased, through his Estate or Personal Representative as a cross-defendant; 3) specify unknown cross-defendants as those with interests adverse to Cross-Complainant Jeremiah Jese Brooke.

Neither the original Motion, nor the Declaration of Elizondo Re: Correction and Substitution of Exhibit were timely noticed for today’s hearing date. Service by US Mail only adds 5 calendar days to service deadlines. CCP § 1005. The Motion will either be denied or continued to a future hearing date at counsel’s request. The Court also notes that Cross-Complainant prematurely filed the Amended Cross-Complaint on July 2, 2026 without leave of Court. The clerk is directed to strike the July 2, 2026 Amended-Cross Complaint.

MCCLOSKEY VS. CITY OF REDDING, ET AL.

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