DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CUD24675245·sf·Civil·Unlawful Detainer
Hearing about 1 year agoDENIED

VLADISLAV AND BIANA CHERNOGUZ REVOCABLE TRUST VS. JOSHUA URRUTIA ET AL

Motion For Order Reclassifying Unlawful Detainer To Unlimited Civil Action

Hearing date
Jul 11, 2025
Department
501
Prevailing
Defendant

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffVLADISLAV AND BIANA CHERNOGUZ REVOCABLE TRUST
DefendantJOSHUA URRUTIA

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CUD24675245 - July 11, 2025 Hearing date: July 11, 2025 Case number: CUD24675245 Case title: VLADISLAV AND BIANA CHERNOGUZ REVOCABLE TRUST VS. JOSHUA URRUTIA ET AL Case Number: | | CUD24675245 | Case Title: | | VLADISLAV AND BIANA CHERNOGUZ REVOCABLE TRUST VS. JOSHUA URRUTIA ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-07-11 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Motion For Order Reclassifying Unlawful Detainer To Unlimited Civil Action; Memorandum Of Points And Authorities | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion calendar for July 11, 2025, line 4.

Plaintiff's Motion for Order Reclassifying Unlawful Detainer as an Unlimited Civil Action is DENIED. Plaintiff has failed to show good cause for its failure to file a motion to reclassify within the time allowed to amend its initial pleading. (See Code Civ. Proc., 403.040, subd. (a) & (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 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