DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC24614209·sf·Civil·Real Property/Housing
Hearing 8 months agoOFF CALENDAR, moot

ARTURO OSIEL VALENCIA BARRERA VS. CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL

Motion To Declare Plaintiff A Vexatious Litigant And Request For Order Requiring Plaintiff To Furnish Security

Hearing date
Dec 29, 2025
Department
501
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffARTURO OSIEL VALENCIA BARRERA
DefendantCITY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CGC24614209 - December 29, 2025 Hearing date: December 29, 2025 Case number: CGC24614209 Case title: ARTURO OSIEL VALENCIA BARRERA VS. CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL Case Number: | | CGC24614209 | Case Title: | | ARTURO OSIEL VALENCIA BARRERA VS. CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-12-29 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Motion To Declare Plaintiff A Vexatious Litigant And Request For Order Requiring Plaintiff To Furnish Security | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for December 29, 2025 line 6.

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DECLARE PLAINTIFF A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT is OFF CALENDAR, moot. Orders entered on September 13, 2024 and December 17, 2025. =(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