DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC11510269·sf·Civil·Real Property
Hearing 9 months agoOFF CALENDAR. Insufficient notice per CCP 1005 and 1010.6.

LYDIA BACA VS. MALINKA TACUMA MOYE et al

Motion And Opposition To Tentative Rulings

Hearing date
Dec 3, 2025
Department
501
Judge
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffLYDIA BACA
DefendantMALINKA TACUMA MOYE
DefendantMALINKA MOYE WADE

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CGC11510269 - December 3, 2025 Hearing date: December 3, 2025 Case number: CGC11510269 Case title: LYDIA BACA VS. MALINKA TACUMA MOYE et al Case Number: | | CGC11510269 | Case Title: | | LYDIA BACA VS. MALINKA TACUMA MOYE et al | Court Date: | | 2025-12-03 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Motion And Opposition To Tentative Rulings | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for December 3, 2025.

Line 1. DEFENDANT MALINKA MOYE WADE, AN INDIVIDUAL Motion And Opposition To Tentative Rulings is OFF CALENDAR. Insufficient notice per CCP 1005 and 1010.6. Proof of service filed on December 1, 2025 attests to e-serve on November 29, 2025. =(501/AAT)

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