| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
MOTION TO ADMIT COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE
SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CGC25628326 - January 2, 2026 Hearing date: January 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: | | 2026-01-02 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | MOTION TO ADMIT COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for January 2, 2026. Line 4.1.
MOTION TO ADMIT COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE - Fria R. Kermani is continued to January 15, 2026.
No later than January 8, 2026, moving party to file and serve (1) proof of service of the application and the notice of hearing of the application on the State Bar (CRC 9.40(c)); and (2) supplemental declaration of someone with personal knowledge that the application fee to the State Bar was paid, confirming the date and the amount of the payment. =(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. | |
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”