DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC24619633·sf·Civil·Real Property / Housing
Hearing about 2 months agoOFF CALENDAR. Action reported settled.

BELLE BALL ET AL VS. NINE SIXTY NINE, LLC ET AL

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Or In The Alternative, Summary Adjudication

Hearing date
Jul 27, 2026
Department
501
Prevailing
N/A
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Motion for Summary Judgment rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffBELLE BALL
DefendantNINE SIXTY NINE, LLC
DefendantAMORE REAL ESTATE, INC
DefendantJERRY HSIEH

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CGC24619633 - July 27, 2026 Hearing date: July 27, 2026 Case number: CGC24619633 Case title: BELLE BALL ET AL VS. NINE SIXTY NINE, LLC ET AL Case Number: | | CGC24619633 | Case Title: | | BELLE BALL ET AL VS. NINE SIXTY NINE, LLC ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-07-27 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Or In The Alternative, Summary Adjudication | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for July 27, 2026. Line 2. DEFENDANT NINE SIXTY NINE, LLC, AMORE REAL ESTATE, INC, JERRY HSIEH MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Or In The Alternative, Summary Adjudication is OFF CALENDAR. Action reported settled. =(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