DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CPF25518894·sf·Civil·Attorney Fees
Hearing 5 months agoTransferred to be heard in Department 301 on the same date.

NICOLE DOBARRO VS. EDWARD KIM

Notice Of Motion And Motion For Attorneys Fees On Appeal And Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Thereof

Hearing date
Mar 26, 2026
Department
302
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Motion for Attorney Fees rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffNICOLE DOBARRO
DefendantEDWARD KIM

Ruling

Set for Law and Motion/Discovery Calendar on Thursday, March 26, 2026, Line 1. PLAINTIFF NICOLE DOBARRO's Motion For Attorneys Fees On Appeal. Transferred to be heard in Department 301 on the same date.

For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 302 Zoom ID 160 409 7690; Passcode 516287.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.

The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/JMQ) | |

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