DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC24620014·sf·Civil·Real Property
Hearing 4 months agoCONTINUED

5910 INVESTMENTS, LLC VS. 1000 VAN NESS LP, 1000 VAN NESS OWNERS ASSOCIATION ET AL

Notice Of Motion And Moiton For Stay Of Proceedings

Hearing date
Apr 17, 2026
Department
501
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Apr 28, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

Plaintiff5910 INVESTMENTS, LLC
Defendant1000 VAN NESS LP
Defendant1000 VAN NESS OWNERS ASSOCIATION

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CGC24620014 - April 17, 2026 Hearing date: April 17, 2026 Case number: CGC24620014 Case title: 5910 INVESTMENTS, LLC VS. 1000 VAN NESS LP,1000 VAN NESS OWNERS ASSOCIATION ET AL Case Number: | | CGC24620014 | Case Title: | | 5910 INVESTMENTS, LLC VS. 1000 VAN NESS LP,1000 VAN NESS OWNERS ASSOCIATION ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-04-17 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion And Moiton For Stay Of Proceedings; Memorandum Of Points And Authorities | Rulings: | | On the Real Property/Housing Motion calendar for April 17, 2026, line 7.

Plaintiff's Motion for Stay of Proceedings is continued to April 28, 2026 on the Court's own motion. =(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 so 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