DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CUD25678751·sf·Civil·Real Property / Housing
Hearing 10 months agoGRANTED

1177 MARKET STREET LLC VS. KARA CASEY ET AL

MOTION FOR SET ASIDE/VACATE JUDGMENT

Hearing date
Oct 17, 2025
Department
501
Prevailing
Defendant

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

Plaintiff1177 MARKET STREET LLC
DefendantKARA CASEY

Ruling

Real Property/Housing Court Motion calendar for October 17, 2025, line 8.

Defendant's Motion to Set Aside Judgment is GRANTED. Defendant has shown that her failure to appear at trial was excusable neglect, because she did not have actual knowledge of the trial date. The Court therefore grants discretionary relief under CCP 473(b).

As this determination is dispositive, the Court makes no determination on Defendant's alternative arguments, and no statement of decision is required under the circumstances of this case.

The judgment entered on September 15, 2025 is vacated. The writ issued on September 15, 2025 is recalled.

The parties are placed on telephone standby for trial assignment. Defendant is ordered to file all trial documents no later than 4:00pm on October 17, 2025. =(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