DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CUD25677486·sf·Civil·Real Property
Hearing 10 months agoCONTINUED

57 TAYLOR I7, LP VS. JUAN GONZALEZ ET AL

DEFENDANT VELAZCO MIRANDA'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Hearing date
Oct 15, 2025
Department
501
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Oct 20, 2025

Motion type

Browse all Motion for Summary Judgment rulings statewide →

Parties

Plaintiff57 TAYLOR I7, LP
DefendantJUAN GONZALEZ
DefendantVELAZCO MIRANDA

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CUD25677486 - October 15, 2025 Hearing date: October 15, 2025 Case number: CUD25677486 Case title: 57 TAYLOR I7, LP VS. JUAN GONZALEZ ET AL Case Number: | | CUD25677486 | Case Title: | | 57 TAYLOR I7, LP VS. JUAN GONZALEZ ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-10-15 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for October 15, 2025 line 5.

DEFENDANT VELAZCO MIRANDA'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT is continued to October 20, 2025, for the parties to comply with LRSF 2.7B and provide courtesy copies of the moving papers, and any opposition and reply, no later than October 16, 2025 with a cover letter reflecting the new hearing date. Briefing schedule in accordance with the original hearing date. =(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