DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CUD25678966·sf·Civil·Real Property/Housing
Hearing 10 months agoOFF CALENDAR. No proof of service on file.

SAMI F. WAHHAB VS. ROBERTO ARRAS ET AL

Notice Of Motion And Motion To Deem Facts Admitted To Plaintiff'S Requests For Admission For Defendant Roberto Arras, Set One And Monetary Sanction

Hearing date
Oct 10, 2025
Department
501
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Compel Discovery rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffSAMI F. WAHHAB
DefendantROBERTO ARRAS

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CUD25678966 - October 10, 2025 Hearing date: October 10, 2025 Case number: CUD25678966 Case title: SAMI F. WAHHAB VS. ROBERTO ARRAS ET AL Case Number: | | CUD25678966 | Case Title: | | SAMI F. WAHHAB VS. ROBERTO ARRAS ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-10-10 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion And Motion To Deem Facts Admitted To Plaintiff'S Requests For Admission For Defendant Roberto Arras, Set One And Monetary Sanction | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Motion calendar for October 10, 2025, line 9.

Plaintiff's Motion to Deem Facts Admitted to Plaintiff's Requests for Admission, Set One and Monetary Sanction is OFF CALENDAR. No proof of service on file. =(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