DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CUD25678872·sf·Civil·Real Property/Housing
Hearing about 1 year agoOFF CALENDAR. Dismissal on file.

HAWK LOU VS. KEREN A. OLIVERA ET AL

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Hearing date
Aug 1, 2025
Department
501
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Motion for Summary Judgment rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffHAWK LOU
DefendantKEREN A. OLIVERA

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CUD25678872 - August 1, 2025 Hearing date: August 1, 2025 Case number: CUD25678872 Case title: HAWK LOU VS. KEREN A. OLIVERA ET AL Case Number: | | CUD25678872 | Case Title: | | HAWK LOU VS. KEREN A. OLIVERA ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-08-01 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion calendar for August 1, 2025, line 8. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is OFF CALENDAR.

Dismissal on file. =(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