DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC19579883·sf·Civil·Real Property
Hearing 8 months agoCONTINUED

FOLSOM STREET INVESTMENTS, LLC ET AL VS. MICHAEL B. ROTHENBERG ET AL

Notice Of Motion And Motion For Order Awarding Attorneys' Fees And For Entry Of Judgment Thereon Against Defendant Rothenberg Ventures Llc

Hearing date
Dec 19, 2025
Department
501
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Jan 23, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Motion for Attorney Fees rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffFOLSOM STREET INVESTMENTS, LLC
DefendantMICHAEL B. ROTHENBERG
DefendantROTHENBERG VENTURES LLC

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CGC19579883 - December 19, 2025 Hearing date: December 19, 2025 Case number: CGC19579883 Case title: FOLSOM STREET INVESTMENTS, LLC ET AL VS. MICHAEL B. ROTHENBERG ET AL Case Number: | | CGC19579883 | Case Title: | | FOLSOM STREET INVESTMENTS, LLC ET AL VS. MICHAEL B. ROTHENBERG ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-12-19 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion And Motion For Order Awarding Attorneys' Fees And For Entry Of Judgment Thereon Against Defendant Rothenberg Ventures Llc; Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Thereof | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for December 19, 2025 line 1.

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES is continued to January 23, 2026 on the Court's own motion. =(501/CFH)

Parties may appear in-person, telephonically or via Zoom [Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849; Phone Dial in: (669) 254-5252].

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