DecisionDepot
California Legal Research
All cases
CUD26681800·sf·Civil·Real Property/Housing
Hearing Required.

ENTREX HOLDINGS LP VS. FITPFSF, INC. ET AL

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS OR STAY OR DISMISS

Hearing date
May 15, 2026
Department
501
Judge
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Motion to Quash

Parties

PlaintiffENTREX HOLDINGS LP
DefendantFITPFSF, INC.

Attorneys

Jay Jonesfor Other
Kris Vorsatzfor Other

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CUD26681800 - May 15, 2026 Hearing date: May 15, 2026 Case number: CUD26681800 Case title: ENTREX HOLDINGS LP VS. FITPFSF, INC. ET AL Case Number: | | CUD26681800 | Case Title: | | ENTREX HOLDINGS LP VS. FITPFSF, INC. ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-05-15 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS OR STAY OR DISMISS | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for May 15, 2026. Line 8. DEFENDANT FITPFSF, INC. MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS OR STAY OR DISMISS Hearing Required.

Crystal Pedregal, Jay Jones, Kris Vorsatz, and Boris Balasanyan are ordered to appear in person or via Zoom with video capabilities.=(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…

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