DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CUD25678884·sf·Civil·Real Property/Housing
Hearing 10 months agoOFF CALENDAR for lack of jurisdiction. The judgment in this matter is currently pending appeal in the appellate division.

JOSEPH XUEREB VS. RONI LEVY ET AL

DEFENDANT RONI LEVY'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT AND VACATE JUDGMENT FOR POSSESSION (PER OCT-22-2025 EX PARTE ORDER)

Hearing date
Oct 24, 2025
Department
501
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffJOSEPH XUEREB
DefendantRONI LEVY

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CUD25678884 - October 24, 2025 Hearing date: October 24, 2025 Case number: CUD25678884 Case title: JOSEPH XUEREB VS. RONI LEVY ET AL Case Number: | | CUD25678884 | Case Title: | | JOSEPH XUEREB VS. RONI LEVY ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-10-24 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | DEFENDANT RONI LEVY'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT AND VACATE JUDGMENT FOR POSSESSION (PER OCT-22-2025 EX PARTE ORDER) | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for October 24, 2025. Line 12.

DEFENDANT RONI LEVY'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT AND VACATE JUDGMENT FOR POSSESSION (PER OCT-22-2025 EX PARTE ORDER) is OFF CALENDAR for lack of jurisdiction. The judgment in this matter is currently pending appeal in the appellate division. =(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