DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CUD25678550·sf·Civil·Real Property/Housing
Hearing 12 months agoGRANTED

POLK STREET GROUP, LLC VS. BRANDY LEE MARTIN ET AL

Notice Of Motion And Renewed Motion To Advance Trial Date

Hearing date
Sep 5, 2025
Department
501
Judge
Prevailing
Plaintiff
Next hearing
Sep 15, 2025

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffPOLK STREET GROUP, LLC
DefendantBRANDY LEE MARTIN

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CUD25678550 - September 5, 2025 Hearing date: September 5, 2025 Case number: CUD25678550 Case title: POLK STREET GROUP, LLC VS. BRANDY LEE MARTIN ET AL Case Number: | | CUD25678550 | Case Title: | | POLK STREET GROUP, LLC VS. BRANDY LEE MARTIN ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-09-05 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion And Renewed Motion To Advance Trial Date | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for September 5, 2025 line 7.

PLAINTIFF'S RENEWED MOTION TO ADVANCE TRIAL DATE is GRANTED, for good cause shown. The trial date of this action is advanced to September 15, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. The mandatory settlement conference is advanced to September 11, 2025 at 1:30 p.m. Plaintiff shall serve notice of entry of this order on September 5, 2025, by either personal service or overnight delivery, and file proof of service no later than September 8, 2025. =(501/SKF)

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