DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CUD25678451·sf·Civil·Real Property
Hearing todayOFF CALENDAR. No proof of proper service.

MICHAEL YANCEY VS. IDRIS PIPPINS ET AL

Notice Of Motion And Motion To Vacate Entry Of Default And Default Judgment Based Upon Improper Entry Of Default Under Ccp 585

Hearing date
Aug 20, 2026
Department
501
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffMICHAEL YANCEY
DefendantIDRIS PIPPINS

Ruling

Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for August 20, 2026. Line 8. DEFENDANT IDRIS PIPPINS Notice Of Motion And Motion To Vacate Entry Of Default And Default Judgment Based Upon Improper Entry Of Default Under Ccp 585 is OFF CALENDAR. No proof of proper service. Proof of electronic service on file reflects service to an email address which does not appear either on Plaintiff's Complaint in this action, nor on Plaintiff's recent filings. =(501/SKF) 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