DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC21596771·sf·Civil·Real Property
Hearing 5 months agoCONTINUED

MHYF HOLDINGS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY ET AL VS. CHRIS V. KELLY ET AL

Motion For Determination Of Good Faith Settlement

Hearing date
Mar 13, 2026
Department
501
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Apr 1, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffMHYF HOLDINGS, LLC
PlaintiffMATTHEW HUMPHREY
PlaintiffYING FU
PlaintiffQUITE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P.
DefendantCHRIS V. KELLY

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CGC21596771 - March 13, 2026 Hearing date: March 13, 2026 Case number: CGC21596771 Case title: MHYF HOLDINGS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY ET AL VS. CHRIS V. KELLY ET AL Case Number: | | CGC21596771 | Case Title: | | MHYF HOLDINGS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY ET AL VS. CHRIS V. KELLY ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-03-13 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion And Motion For Determination Of Good Faith Settlement | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for March 13, 2026. Line 4. PLAINTIFF MHYF HOLDINGS, LLC, MATTHEW HUMPHREY, YING FU, QUITE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P. Motion For Determination Of Good Faith Settlement is continued to April 1, 2026 to be heard with other pending motion(s) =(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