DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CUD24676465·sf·Civil·Real Property / Housing
Hearing 10 months agoCONTINUED

365 FULTON, L.P VS. PAULINE CLARK ET AL

Motion For Entry Of Judgment Pursuant To Stipulation

Hearing date
Oct 29, 2025
Department
501
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Nov 7, 2025

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

Plaintiff365 FULTON, L.P
DefendantPAULINE CLARK

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CUD24676465 - October 29, 2025 Hearing date: October 29, 2025 Case number: CUD24676465 Case title: 365 FULTON, L.P VS. PAULINE CLARK ET AL Case Number: | | CUD24676465 | Case Title: | | 365 FULTON, L.P VS. PAULINE CLARK ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-10-29 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Motion For Entry Of Judgment Pursuant To Stipulation | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for October 29, 2025. Line 6.

PLAINTIFF 365 FULTON, L.P Motion For Entry Of Judgment Pursuant To Stipulation is continued to November 7, 2025 to be heard by the Honorable Ronald E. Quidachay, per the order of the presiding judge.

The moving party is ordered to comply with LRSF 2.7B and provide courtesy copies of the moving papers no later than October 30, 2025 with a cover letter reflecting the new hearing date. =(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 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