DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CUD25680300·sf·Civil·Real Property/Housing
Hearing 7 months agoCONTINUED

ABZ MISSION LLC VS. GUADALUPE CASTILLO ET AL

Verified Petititon For Relief From Forfeiture

Hearing date
Jan 28, 2026
Department
501
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Feb 11, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Petition rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffABZ MISSION LLC
DefendantGUADALUPE CASTILLO

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CUD25680300 - January 28, 2026 Hearing date: January 28, 2026 Case number: CUD25680300 Case title: ABZ MISSION LLC VS. GUADALUPE CASTILLO ET AL Case Number: | | CUD25680300 | Case Title: | | ABZ MISSION LLC VS. GUADALUPE CASTILLO ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-01-28 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Verified Petititon For Relief From Forfeiture | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for January 28, 2026. Line 13.

DEFENDANT GUADALUPE CASTILLO Verified Petititon For Relief From Forfeiture is continued to February 11, 2026 for the opposing party to comply with LRSF 2.7B and provide courtesy copies of the opposition papers no later than January 29, 2026 with a cover letter reflecting the new hearing date. (Moving and reply papers received.) No further briefing. =(505/MT)

Parties may appear in-person, or via Zoom Video Conference (Meeting ID: 160 4132 4666 Passcode: 872834).

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