DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CUD25679187·sf·Civil·Unlawful Detainer
Hearing 10 months agoDENIED

PARKMERCED OWNER, LLC VS. THIAGO SILVA ET AL

HEARING ON CLAIM OF RIGHT TO POSSESSION

Hearing date
Oct 29, 2025
Department
501
Prevailing
Plaintiff

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffPARKMERCED OWNER, LLC
DefendantTHIAGO SILVA
DefendantELIZEU XAVIER

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CUD25679187 - October 29, 2025 Hearing date: October 29, 2025 Case number: CUD25679187 Case title: PARKMERCED OWNER, LLC VS. THIAGO SILVA ET AL Case Number: | | CUD25679187 | Case Title: | | PARKMERCED OWNER, LLC VS. THIAGO SILVA ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-10-29 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | HEARING ON CLAIM OF RIGHT TO POSSESSION | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for October 29, 2025. Line 8.

DEFENDANT ELIZEU XAVIER HEARING ON CLAIM OF RIGHT TO POSSESSION is DENIED. Prejudgment Claim of Right to Possession form was served with the Summons and Complaint. Therefore, this post-judgment claim, filed more than 10 days after the prejudgment claim form was served, is untimely, as the judgment applies to all occupants of the premises. =(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