DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CUD25679292·sf·Civil·Real Property/Housing
Hearing 11 months agoOFF CALENDAR. Insufficient notice per CCP 1005(b).

1049 MARKET STREET LLC VS. NICHOLAS COLEMAN GRANT ET AL

Notice Of Motion For Continuance Of Hearing On Motion To Vacate Default Jdugment

Hearing date
Oct 7, 2025
Department
501
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

Plaintiff1049 MARKET STREET LLC
DefendantNICHOLAS COLEMAN GRANT

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CUD25679292 - October 7, 2025 Hearing date: October 7, 2025 Case number: CUD25679292 Case title: 1049 MARKET STREET LLC VS. NICHOLAS COLEMAN GRANT ET AL Case Number: | | CUD25679292 | Case Title: | | 1049 MARKET STREET LLC VS. NICHOLAS COLEMAN GRANT ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-10-07 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion For Continuance Of Hearing On Motion To Vacate Default Jdugment; Memorandum Of Points And Authorities | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion calendar for October 7, 2025, line 8.

DEFENDANT NICHOLAS GRANT'S Motion For Continuance Of Hearing On Motion To Vacate Default Judgment is OFF CALENDAR. Insufficient notice per CCP 1005(b). =(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