DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CUD24676433·sf·Civil·Real Property / Housing
Hearing 11 months agoGRANTED

AVENTURA BY MISSION, LLC VS. RICHARD PAK ET AL

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT /Adjudication

Hearing date
Sep 23, 2025
Department
501
Prevailing
Plaintiff

Motion type

Browse all Motion for Summary Judgment rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffAVENTURA BY MISSION, LLC
DefendantRICHARD PAK

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CUD24676433 - September 23, 2025 Hearing date: September 23, 2025 Case number: CUD24676433 Case title: AVENTURA BY MISSION, LLC VS. RICHARD PAK ET AL Case Number: | | CUD24676433 | Case Title: | | AVENTURA BY MISSION, LLC VS. RICHARD PAK ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-09-23 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT /Adjudication | Rulings: | | On the Real Property/Housing Court motion calendar for September 23, 2025, line 2.

Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication is GRANTED. =(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