DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC25628326·sf·Civil·Real Property / Housing
Hearing about 2 months agoCONTINUED

BHSD TPC PROPCO LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY VS. CORE: SF LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ET AL

MOTION TO ADMIT COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE

Hearing date
Jul 2, 2026
Department
501
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Jul 27, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffBHSD TPC PROPCO LLC
DefendantCORE: SF LLC
Cross-DefendantBAYERISCHE VERSORGUNGSKAMMER

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CGC25628326 - July 2, 2026 Hearing date: July 2, 2026 Case number: CGC25628326 Case title: BHSD TPC PROPCO LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY VS. CORE: SF LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ET AL Case Number: | | CGC25628326 | Case Title: | | BHSD TPC PROPCO LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY VS. CORE: SF LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-07-02 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | MOTION TO ADMIT COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for July 2, 2026. Line 3.2.

CROSS DEFENDANT BAYERISCHE VERSORGUNGSKAMMER MOTION TO ADMIT COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE is continued to July 27, 2026 to be heard with other pending motions. =(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. | |

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