DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC23604413·sf·Civil·Real Property
Hearing 10 months agoOFF CALENDAR (DUPLICATE ENTRY)

JACQUELINE FRANCIS VS. LEN FREEMAN ET AL

DEFENDANTS GEORGE MATTHEWS FRANCISCAN PROPERTIES AND BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY FRANCISCAN PROPERTIES' MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

Hearing date
Oct 15, 2025
Department
501
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffJACQUELINE FRANCIS
DefendantLEN FREEMAN
DefendantGEORGE MATTHEWS FRANCISCAN PROPERTIES
DefendantBERKSHIRE HATHAWAY FRANCISCAN PROPERTIES

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CGC23604413 - October 15, 2025 Hearing date: October 15, 2025 Case number: CGC23604413 Case title: JACQUELINE FRANCIS VS. LEN FREEMAN ET AL Case Number: | | CGC23604413 | Case Title: | | JACQUELINE FRANCIS VS. LEN FREEMAN ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-10-15 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | DEFENDANTS GEORGE MATTHEWS FRANCISCAN PROPERTIES AND BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY FRANCISCAN PROPERTIES MOTION FOR GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT (TRANSFERRED FROM DEPT. 301) | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for October 15, 2025 line 2.

DEFENDANTS GEORGE MATTHEWS FRANCISCAN PROPERTIES AND BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY FRANCISCAN PROPERTIES' MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT is off calendar (duplicate entry) =(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