Motion For Summary Judgment Or In The Alternative For Summary Adjudication
SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CUD26681709 - July 2, 2026 Hearing date: July 2, 2026 Case number: CUD26681709 Case title: ROGER SALBINO VS. JUDITA DILOY Case Number: | | CUD26681709 | Case Title: | | ROGER SALBINO VS. JUDITA DILOY | Court Date: | | 2026-07-02 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT / Notice Of Plaintiff Motion For Summary Judgment Or In The Alternative For Summary Adjudication | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for July 2, 2026. Line 10.
PLAINTIFF ROGER SALBINO Motion For Summary Judgment Or In The Alternative For Summary Adjudication is CONTINUED to July 15, 2026 per the order of the presiding judge.
The moving party is directed to provide a courtesy copy of the index of exhibits filed in support of this motion that complies with CRC 3.1110(f)(3) no later than July 2, 2026, with a cover letter reflecting the new hearing date. The courtesy copy previously provided to the Court includes 13 exhibits, which are not tabbed. =(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 notified, and the opposing party does not appear. | |
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?”