DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC25632098·sf·Civil·Real Property
Hearing 4 months agoCONTINUED

JENNIFER KLUSKA ET AL VS. MARVIN KASOFF ET AL

MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT

Hearing date
Apr 16, 2026
Department
501
Judge
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
May 11, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Strike rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffJENNIFER KLUSKA
DefendantMARVIN KASOFF

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CGC25632098 - April 16, 2026 Hearing date: April 16, 2026 Case number: CGC25632098 Case title: JENNIFER KLUSKA ET AL VS. MARVIN KASOFF ET AL Case Number: | | CGC25632098 | Case Title: | | JENNIFER KLUSKA ET AL VS. MARVIN KASOFF ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-04-16 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT | Rulings: | | On the Real Property/Housing Law and Motion calendar for April 16, 2026, line 7.

Defendant's Motion to Strike Complaint is continued to May 11, 2026 for opposing party to comply with SFLR 2.7B and provide courtesy copies of opposition no later than April 24, 2026 with a cover letter reflecting the new hearing date. (Moving and reply received) =(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 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 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