DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CUD24676316·sf·Civil·Unlawful Detainer
Hearing 7 months agoOFF CALENDAR

T. WISEAU VS. JOE ABUZAID ET AL

Notice Of Motion And Motion For Re-Classification Of Unlawful Detainer Case From Limited To Unlimited

Hearing date
Jan 26, 2026
Department
501
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Jan 29, 2026
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffT. WISEAU
DefendantJOE ABUZAID

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CUD24676316 - January 26, 2026 Hearing date: January 26, 2026 Case number: CUD24676316 Case title: T. WISEAU VS. JOE ABUZAID ET AL Case Number: | | CUD24676316 | Case Title: | | T. WISEAU VS. JOE ABUZAID ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-01-26 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion And Motion For Re-Classification Of Unlawful Detainer Acse From Limited To Unlimited | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for January 26, 2026. Line 7.

PLAINTIFF T. WISEAU Notice Of Motion And Motion For Re-Classification Of Unlawful Detainer Case From Limited To Unlimited is OFF CALENDAR. Re-noticed for January 29, 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 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