DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CUD07624076·sf·Civil·Real Property
Hearing about 1 year agoCONTINUED

JACKSON HOU VS. BENHAM ZANDINEJAD et al

Motion To Vacate Renewal Of Judgment

Hearing date
Jul 17, 2025
Department
501
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Jul 24, 2025

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffJACKSON HOU
DefendantBENHAM ZANDINEJAD

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CUD07624076 - July 17, 2025 Hearing date: July 17, 2025 Case number: CUD07624076 Case title: JACKSON HOU VS. BENHAM ZANDINEJAD et al Case Number: | | CUD07624076 | Case Title: | | JACKSON HOU VS. BENHAM ZANDINEJAD et al | Court Date: | | 2025-07-17 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Motion To Vacate Renewal Of Judgment | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion calendar for July 17, 2025, line 4.

Defendant's Motion to Vacate Renewal of Judgment is CONTINUED to July 24, 2025 at 9:30 a.m., for the opposing party to comply with LRSF 2.7B and provide courtesy copies of the opposition no later than July 18, 2025 with a cover letter reflecting the new hearing date. (Moving papers and reply received.) =(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