DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CUD25679293·sf·Civil·Real Property/Housing
Hearing 11 months agoOFF CALENDAR. No proof of service on file and hearing date does not comply with CCP 1005(b).

1049 MARKET STREET LLC VS. NICHOLAS COLEMAN GRANT ET AL

Notice Of Motion And Motion To Vacate Default Judgment

Hearing date
Sep 19, 2025
Department
501
Prevailing
N/A
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

Plaintiff1049 MARKET STREET LLC
DefendantNICHOLAS COLEMAN GRANT

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CUD25679293 - September 19, 2025 Hearing date: September 19, 2025 Case number: CUD25679293 Case title: 1049 MARKET STREET LLC VS. NICHOLAS COLEMAN GRANT ET AL Case Number: | | CUD25679293 | Case Title: | | 1049 MARKET STREET LLC VS. NICHOLAS COLEMAN GRANT ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-09-19 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion And Motion To Vacate Default Judgment | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for Sept 19, 2025. Line 18.

DEFENDANT NICHOLAS GRANT Notice Of Motion And Motion To Vacate Default Judgment is OFF CALENDAR. No proof of service on file and hearing date does not comply with CCP 1005(b). =(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 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