Motion For An Order (1) Confirming That The Five-Year Period Under Code Of Civil Procedure Section 583.310 Has Been Tolled; (2) Or, In The Alternative, Striking The Fifth Amended Complaint, Deeming The Fourth Amended Complaint The Operative Pleading, And Entering Defendants' Default For Failure To File A Responsive Pleading Thereto; And (3) For An Order Acknowledging That Any Trialsetting Or Calendar Relief Is Properly Presented To Department 206
SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CGC21589838 - January 27, 2026 Hearing date: January 27, 2026 Case number: CGC21589838 Case title: JADE CHAPMAN VS. CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL, INC. ET AL Case Number: | | CGC21589838 | Case Title: | | JADE CHAPMAN VS. CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL, INC. ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-01-27 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion And Motion For An Order (1) Confirming That The Five-Year Period Under Code Of Civil Procedure Section 583.310 Has Been Tolled; (2) Or, In The Alternative, Striking The Fifth Amended Complaint, Deeming The Fourth Amended Complaint The Operative Pleading, And Entering Defendants' Default For Failure To File A Responsive Pleading Thereto; And (3) For An Order Acknowledging That Any Trialsetting Or Calendar Relief Is Properly Presented To Department 206; Memorandum Of Points And Authorities; Declaration Of Ilan N.
Rosen Janfaza | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for January 27, 2026. Line 2. PLAINTIFF JADE CHAPMAN Motion For An Order (1) Confirming That The Five-Year Period Under Code Of Civil Procedure Section 583.310 Has Been Tolled; (2) Or, In The Alternative, Striking The Fifth Amended Complaint, Deeming The Fourth Amended Complaint The Operative Pleading, And Entering Defendants' Default For Failure To File A Responsive Pleading Thereto; And (3) For An Order Acknowledging That Any Trialsetting Or Calendar Relief Is Properly Presented To Department 206; is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.
On January 14, 2025 the Court granted Plaintiff's Oral request to set a hearing on shortened time on (1) the tolling and (2) dismissal of the Fifth Amended Complaint/default. The parties have been orally advised that any matters pertaining to the trial setting belong in the Presiding Judge's department.
On January 16, 2026 Plaintiff filed the instant motion, seeking inter alia and Order acknowledging that any trial setting or calendar relief is property presented to department 206. On this issue Plaintiff is referred to the San Francisco Local Rules outlining the proper departments for civil cases re: Law and Motion, Discovery, Trial Calendar, Case Management, etc. Department 501 will confirm that the trial setting is properly addressed with the Presiding Judge for general civil matters.
The motion to confirm that the five-year period under CCP 583.310 has been tolled is DENIED. Moving party provides no evidence or argument as to any specific periods of time that are purportedly subject to tolling. It is impossible to discern from the motion if the purported tolling to be "confirmed" is for example for 1 day or for 4 years.
The Motion to Strike the Fifth Amended Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff appears to wish not to proceed with their Fifth Amended Complaint filed on December 29, 2025, and instead to revert to the Fourth Amended Complaint. The Court notes that no explanation is provided by the Plaintiff regarding the reasons for filing the Fifth Amended Complaint on December 29, 2025 immediately followed by a request to strike this pleading within 2 weeks of the filing. The Fourth Amended Complaint shall be the operative pleading in this action, subject to June 27, 2025 Order Striking Plaintiff's Claim for Punitive Damages.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
The Motion to Enter Defendants' Default for Failure to File a Responsive Pleading to the Fourth Amended Complaint is DENIED. There are three named defendants in this action. Plaintiff asserts that defendants failed to respond to the Fourth Amended Complaint. Plaintiff does not elaborate on this claim and does not cite any authority or evidence to support either the statement that (1) defendants failed to respond; or (2) that their time to response has lapsed. Plaintiff points to no proof of service of the Summons or any version of the Complaint on Defendant Stephany West.
The Court record indicates that the fourth amended complaint was filed and e-served on the other defendants on December 16, 2024. The served defendants responded by filing a Motion to Strike on January 15, 2025. Plaintiff does not explain why Plaintiff did not take defendants' default prior to the filing of the Fifth Amended Complaint if Plaintiff believes that Defendants are in default.
Given the procedural posture of this case, and the Court's GRANTING Plaintiff's motion to Strike Plaintiff's Fifth Amended Complaint, defendants shall file an answer to the Fourth Amended Complaint (subject to June 27, 2025) order in accordance with the law based on the Notice of Entry of this order. Plaintiff to prepare an order, submit it for execution and serve. =(501/CFH) | |