DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC24617633·sf·Civil·Real Property
Hearing 8 months agoCONTINUED

WESTFIELD 816-818 MISSION STREET LLC, VS. NASS ENTERPRISE, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION ET AL

APPLICATION AND HEARING FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER

Hearing date
Dec 11, 2025
Department
501
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Dec 19, 2025

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffWESTFIELD 816-818 MISSION STREET LLC
DefendantNASS ENTERPRISE, INC.

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CGC24617633 - December 11, 2025 Hearing date: December 11, 2025 Case number: CGC24617633 Case title: WESTFIELD 816-818 MISSION STREET LLC, VS. NASS ENTERPRISE, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION ET AL Case Number: | | CGC24617633 | Case Title: | | WESTFIELD 816-818 MISSION STREET LLC, VS. NASS ENTERPRISE, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-12-11 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | APPLICATION AND HEARING FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for December 11, 2025. Line 2.1. PLAINTIFF WESTFIELD 816-818 MISSION STREET LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY APPLICATION AND HEARING FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER; is continued to December 19, 2025 to be heard by the honorable Charles F. Haines. =(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 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