DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC25628326·sf·Civil·Real Property
Hearing 7 months agoGRANTED

BHSD TPC PROPCO LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY VS. CORE: SF LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ET AL

MOTION TO ADMIT COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE - DAVID E. ROSS

Hearing date
Jan 15, 2026
Department
501
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffBHSD TPC PROPCO LLC
DefendantCORE: SF LLC

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CGC25628326 - January 15, 2026 Hearing date: January 15, 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: | | 2026-01-15 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | MOTION TO ADMIT COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE - DAVID E. ROSS | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for January 15, 2026. Line 6.3.

MOTION TO ADMIT COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE - DAVID E. ROSS is GRANTED. No opposition filed. =(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