DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CUD25677283·sf·Civil·Real Property / Housing
Hearing about 1 year agoCONTINUED

LIZ JESUS VELIZ ET AL VS. NICOLE GULLY ET AL

Notice Of Motion And Motion To Vacate Judgment Pursuant To Ccp 473(D)

Hearing date
Aug 13, 2025
Department
501
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Aug 20, 2025

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffLIZ JESUS VELIZ
DefendantNICOLE GULLY

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CUD25677283 - August 13, 2025 Hearing date: August 13, 2025 Case number: CUD25677283 Case title: LIZ JESUS VELIZ ET AL VS. NICOLE GULLY ET AL Case Number: | | CUD25677283 | Case Title: | | LIZ JESUS VELIZ ET AL VS. NICOLE GULLY ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-08-13 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion And Motion To Vacate Judgment Pursuant To Ccp 473(D) | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Motion calendar for August 13, 2025, line 6.

Defendant's Motion to Vacate Judgment Pursuant to CCP 473(d) is CONTINUED to August 20, 2025 at 9:30 a.m., for the moving party to comply with LRSF 2.7B and provide courtesy copies of the moving papers no later than August 14, 2025 with a cover letter reflecting the new hearing date. (Opposition received.) =(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 tent ative 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