DecisionDepot
California Legal Research
All cases
CGC24620014·sf·Civil·Real Property
CONDITONALLY GRANTED

5910 INVESTMENTS, LLC VS. 1000 VAN NESS LP, 1000 VAN NESS OWNERS ASSOCIATION ET AL

Notice Of Motion And Moiton For Stay Of Proceedings

Hearing date
Apr 28, 2026
Department
501
Judge
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Other

Parties

Plaintiff5910 INVESTMENTS, LLC
Defendant1000 VAN NESS LP
Defendant1000 VAN NESS OWNERS ASSOCIATION

Ruling

Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for April 28, 2026. Line 4. PLAINTIFF 5910 INVESTMENTS, LLC Notice Of Motion And Moiton For Stay Of Proceedings is conditionally GRANTED.

If Cross-Complainant fails to timely file an amended Cross-Complaint, the action shall be stayed on the 11th day after notice of entry of Demurrer order without further order of the Court.

If amended Cross-Complaint is filed, the Motion for Stay of Proceedings shall go off calendar and may be renewed, if and when there is no operative Cross-Complaint on file (e.g. demurrer to the next version of the Cross-Complaint is sustained without leave to amend; Cross-Complaint is voluntarily dismissed, etc.). =(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…

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