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

FREDRIC VINNA VS. YAN HONG-HEIM ET AL

Motion For Order To Stay Action Pending Mediation

Hearing date
May 6, 2026
Department
501
Judge
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Other

Parties

PlaintiffFREDRIC VINNA
DefendantYAN HONG-HEIM

Attorneys

Mark J. Ricefor Moving Party

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CGC25626224 - May 6, 2026 Hearing date: May 6, 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: | | 2026-05-06 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Motion For Order To Stay Action Pending Mediation; Proposed Order; Memorandum Of Points & Authorities; Declaration Of Mark J. Rice | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for May 6, 2026. Line 5.1.

PLAINTIFF FREDRIC VINNA Motion For Order To Stay Action Pending Mediation; Proposed Order is stayed until September 1, 2026. Per the declaration of Mark Rice all parties agreed to mediate and mediation is set for August 24, 2026. =(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