DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC18569923·sf·Civil·Real Property
Hearing 6 months agoOFF CALENDAR

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL VS. SANTOS & URRUTIA ASSOCIATES, INC.

Notice Of Motion For Attorney Fees

Hearing date
Feb 9, 2026
Department
501
Prevailing
N/A
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Motion for Attorney Fees rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffCITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
DefendantSANTOS & URRUTIA ASSOCIATES, INC.

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CGC18569923 - February 9, 2026 Hearing date: February 9, 2026 Case number: CGC18569923 Case title: CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL VS. SANTOS & URRUTIA ASSOCIATES, INC. Case Number: | | CGC18569923 | Case Title: | | CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL VS. SANTOS & URRUTIA ASSOCIATES, INC. | Court Date: | | 2026-02-09 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion For Attorney Fees | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for February 9, 2026.

Line 1 PLAINTIFF CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Motion For Attorney Fees is OFF CALENDAR. Heard on January 28, 2026. =(501/REQ)

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