DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CUD25679155·sf·Civil·Real Property / Housing
Hearing 9 months agoGRANTED

MARDELL MONROE VS. LANEISHA JOHNSON ET AL

MOTION TO CONTINUE JURY TRIAL

Hearing date
Nov 19, 2025
Department
501
Prevailing
Moving Party
Next hearing
Jan 26, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffMARDELL MONROE TRUSTEE ON BEHALF OF ADELL AND HELEN SHEPARD TRUST
DefendantLANEISHA JOHNSON

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CUD25679155 - November 19, 2025 Hearing date: November 19, 2025 Case number: CUD25679155 Case title: MARDELL MONROE VS. LANEISHA JOHNSON ET AL Case Number: | | CUD25679155 | Case Title: | | MARDELL MONROE VS. LANEISHA JOHNSON ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-11-19 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | MOTION TO CONTINUE JURY TRIAL | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for November 19, 2025. Line 10.

PLAINTIFF MARDELL MONROE TRUSTEE ON BEHALF OF ADELL AND HELEN SHEPARD TRUST MOTION TO CONTINUE JURY TRIAL; is GRANTED. No opposition filed.

This case is re-set for jury trial on January 26, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 501, and for in person mandatory settlement conference on January 22, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 501. =(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