DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CPF25519339·sf·Civil·Real Property/Housing
Hearing 10 months agoCONTINUED

IN RE: GRAMERCY TOWERS CONDOMINUM ASSOCAITON ET AL

PETITIONER'S HEARING ON PETITION TO INVALIDATE 2025 ELECTION AND CONDUCT CURRENT RECALL ELECTION AND WRIT OF MANDATE

Hearing date
Oct 27, 2025
Department
501
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Nov 10, 2025

Motion type

Browse all Petition rulings statewide →

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CPF25519339 - October 27, 2025 Hearing date: October 27, 2025 Case number: CPF25519339 Case title: IN RE: GRAMERCY TOWERS CONDOMINUM ASSOCAITON ET AL Case Number: | | CPF25519339 | Case Title: | | IN RE: GRAMERCY TOWERS CONDOMINUM ASSOCAITON ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-10-27 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | PETITIONER'S HEARING ON PETITION TO INVALIDATE 2025 ELECTION AND CONDUCT CURRENT RECALL ELECTION AND WRIT OF MANDATE | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for October 27, 2025. Line 1.

PETITIONER'S HEARING ON PETITION TO INVALIDATE 2025 ELECTION AND CONDUCT CURRENT RECALL ELECTION AND WRIT OF MANDATE is transferred to department 301 to be heard on November 10, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. per the order of the presiding judge. =(501/CFH)

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 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