DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CUD25677376·sf·Civil·Unlawful Detainer
Hearing 12 months agoDENIED without prejudice.

OM/UDR SF LLC, VS. MELISSA CURRY ET AL

Motion For Judgment Pursuant To Stipulation

Hearing date
Aug 26, 2025
Department
501
Prevailing
Defendant

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffOM/UDR SF LLC
DefendantMELISSA CURRY

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CUD25677376 - August 26, 2025 Hearing date: August 26, 2025 Case number: CUD25677376 Case title: OM/UDR SF LLC, VS. MELISSA CURRY ET AL Case Number: | | CUD25677376 | Case Title: | | OM/UDR SF LLC, VS. MELISSA CURRY ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-08-26 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Motion For Judgment Pursuant To Stipulation | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Motion calendar for August 26, 2025, line 5.

Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation is DENIED without prejudice. Per the declaration of plaintiff's agent, the parties entered into a lease on a date after the Notice to Pay Rent or Quit was served. Plaintiff does not explain how it can nonetheless maintain this action for unlawful detainer. Plaintiff also provides no authority for the Court's ability to enter a monetary judgment in excess of the jurisdictional limit for this limited jurisdiction action. =(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