DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CUD26682645·sf·Civil·Real Property / Housing
Hearing todayCONTINUED

VALSTOCK VENTURES, LLC VS. PHI MAI ET AL

Notice Of Motion And Motion To Compel Discovery

Hearing date
Sep 10, 2026
Department
501
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Sep 15, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Compel Discovery rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffVALSTOCK VENTURES, LLC
DefendantPHI MAI

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CUD26682645 - September 10, 2026 Hearing date: September 10, 2026 Case number: CUD26682645 Case title: VALSTOCK VENTURES, LLC VS. PHI MAI ET AL Case Number: | | CUD26682645 | Case Title: | | VALSTOCK VENTURES, LLC VS. PHI MAI ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-09-10 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion And Motion To Compel Discovery | Rulings: | | On the Real Property / Housing Motion calendar for September 10, 2026, line 11.

Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery is continued to September 15, 2026. No later than September 10, 2026, Plaintiff's counsel to file and serve a supplemental declaration authenticating and attaching a copy of the document entitled "MEET AND CONFER LETTER TO PHI MAI DATED 8-6-2026 RE FORM INTERROGATORIES GENERAL" which was served with the discovery. =(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