DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CUD23673725·sf·Civil·Real Property / Housing
Hearing 3 months agoDENIED

1651 MARKET, LP VS. VALENTIN ISAEV ET AL

Motion For Entry Of Judgment Pursuant To The Stipulation And Order

Hearing date
May 18, 2026
Department
501
Prevailing
Opposing Party

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

Plaintiff1651 MARKET, LP
DefendantVALENTIN ISAEV

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CUD23673725 - May 18, 2026 Hearing date: May 18, 2026 Case number: CUD23673725 Case title: 1651 MARKET, LP VS. VALENTIN ISAEV ET AL Case Number: | | CUD23673725 | Case Title: | | 1651 MARKET, LP VS. VALENTIN ISAEV ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-05-18 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Motion For Entry Of Judgment Pursuant To The Stipulation And Order | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for May 18, 2026. Line 4.

PLAINTIFF 1651 MARKET, LP Motion For Entry Of Judgment Pursuant To The Stipulation And Order is DENIED. Motion is not supported by points and authorities. The pages attached to the Notice of Motion do not include any citation to authority and no other papers are filed with the motion include authorities. CRC 3.1112(a)(3); CRC 3.1113. =(501/DWH)

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