DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CUD25678270·sf·Civil·Real Property
Hearing about 1 year agoGRANTED

GAETANI REAL ESTATE VS. ARCHIE CHOICE ET AL

Notice Of Motion And Motion To Continue Trial Date

Hearing date
Aug 11, 2025
Department
501
Prevailing
Moving Party
Next hearing
Aug 25, 2025

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffGAETANI REAL ESTATE
DefendantARCHIE CHOICE

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CUD25678270 - August 11, 2025 Hearing date: August 11, 2025 Case number: CUD25678270 Case title: GAETANI REAL ESTATE VS. ARCHIE CHOICE ET AL Case Number: | | CUD25678270 | Case Title: | | GAETANI REAL ESTATE VS. ARCHIE CHOICE ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-08-11 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion And Motion To Continue Trial Date | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Motion calendar for August 11, 2025, line 4.

Defendant's Motion to Continue Trial Date is GRANTED, per the stipulation of the parties. The trial date is continued to August 25, 2025. The discovery cutoff is unchanged by this continuance, with the exception that depositions previously noticed may proceed. Mandatory settlement conference is re-set for August 21, 2025. =(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