DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CUD25679158·sf·Civil·Real Property
Hearing 10 months agoOFF CALENDAR. Settlement agreement on file.

GAETANI REAL ESTATE VS. MICHAEL OLSEN ET AL

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

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

Motion type

Browse all Motion for Summary Judgment rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffGAETANI REAL ESTATE
DefendantMICHAEL OLSEN

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CUD25679158 - October 20, 2025 Hearing date: October 20, 2025 Case number: CUD25679158 Case title: GAETANI REAL ESTATE VS. MICHAEL OLSEN ET AL Case Number: | | CUD25679158 | Case Title: | | GAETANI REAL ESTATE VS. MICHAEL OLSEN ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-10-20 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Motion calendar for October 20, 2025, line 9. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is OFF CALENDAR.

Settlement agreement 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