DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CUD24677098·sf·Civil·Real Property/Housing
Hearing 9 months agoOFF CALENDAR. No proof of service of the moving papers on Defendant Wynn, who is in pro per.

POTRERO LAUNCH AFFORDABLE LP VS. LISA WYNN ET AL

Motion For Entry Of Judgment Pursuant To Stipulation

Hearing date
Nov 18, 2025
Department
501
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffPOTRERO LAUNCH AFFORDABLE LP
DefendantLISA WYNN

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CUD24677098 - November 18, 2025 Hearing date: November 18, 2025 Case number: CUD24677098 Case title: POTRERO LAUNCH AFFORDABLE LP VS. LISA WYNN ET AL Case Number: | | CUD24677098 | Case Title: | | POTRERO LAUNCH AFFORDABLE LP VS. LISA WYNN ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-11-18 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Motion For Entry Of Judgment Pursuant To Stipulation | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for November 18, 2025. Line 7.1.

PLAINTIFF POTRERO LAUNCH AFFORDABLE LP Motion For Entry Of Judgment Pursuant To Stipulation is OFF CALENDAR. No proof of service of the moving papers on Defendant Wynn, who is in pro per. =(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