DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC23608302·sf·Civil·Real Property / Housing
Hearing 6 months agoCONTINUED

EMI J. YOSHIDA ET AL VS. 479 LOS PALMOS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED ET AL

MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

Hearing date
Feb 19, 2026
Department
501
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Feb 26, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffEMI J. YOSHIDA
Defendant479 LOS PALMOS, LLC
DefendantJOSHUA CHAVEZ

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CGC23608302 - February 19, 2026 Hearing date: February 19, 2026 Case number: CGC23608302 Case title: EMI J. YOSHIDA ET AL VS. 479 LOS PALMOS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED ET AL Case Number: | | CGC23608302 | Case Title: | | EMI J. YOSHIDA ET AL VS. 479 LOS PALMOS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-02-19 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for February 19, 2026. Line 4.1. DEFENDANT JOSHUA CHAVEZ MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

The Court is inclined to grant this motion after the hearing on the Motion to Continue Trial. Therefore, the hearing is continued to February 26, 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