DecisionDepot
California Legal Research
All cases
CGC25626224·sf·Civil·Real Property
CONTINUED

FREDRIC VINNA VS. YAN HONG-HEIM ET AL

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STAY ACTION PENDING MEDIATION

Hearing date
Feb 13, 2026
Department
501
Judge
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Mar 10, 2026

Motion type

Other

Parties

PlaintiffFREDRIC VINNA
DefendantYAN HONG-HEIM

Attorneys

Mark J. Ricefor Plaintiff

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CGC25626224 - February 13, 2026 Hearing date: February 13, 2026 Case number: CGC25626224 Case title: FREDRIC VINNA VS. YAN HONG-HEIM ET AL Case Number: | | CGC25626224 | Case Title: | | FREDRIC VINNA VS. YAN HONG-HEIM ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-02-13 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Motion And Notice Of Hearing, Memiradum Of Points And Authorities And Dec Of Mark J. Rice | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for February 13, 2026 line 6.

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STAY ACTION PENDING MEDIATION is continued to March 10, 2026 for the moving party to comply with SFLR 2.7B and provide a courtesy copy of reply no later than February 27, 2026 with a cover letter reflecting new hearing date. (moving and opposition received). =(501/CFH)

Parties may appear in-person, telephonically or via Zoom [Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849; Phone Dial in: (669) 254-5252].

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…

Extracted by Gemini Flash 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?”

Powered by Gemini Flash Lite. Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Source

Share