DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CUD25677498·sf·Civil·Real Property
Hearing about 1 year agoOFF CALENDAR

GAETANI REAL ESTATE VS. MICHAEL ROTHENBERG ET AL

Notice Of Motion And Motion To Compel Deposition And Document Production; And To Continue Trial

Hearing date
Jun 25, 2025
Department
501
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Compel Discovery rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffGAETANI REAL ESTATE
DefendantMICHAEL ROTHENBERG

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CUD25677498 - June 25, 2025 Hearing date: June 25, 2025 Case number: CUD25677498 Case title: GAETANI REAL ESTATE VS. MICHAEL ROTHENBERG ET AL Case Number: | | CUD25677498 | Case Title: | | GAETANI REAL ESTATE VS. MICHAEL ROTHENBERG ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-06-25 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion And Motion To Compel Deposition And Document Production; And To Continue Trial | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion calendar for June 25, 2025, line 13.

Defendant's Motion to Compel Deposition and Document Production and to Continue Trial is OFF CALENDAR. Insufficient notice per CCP 1170.8 and 1010.6. Defendant filed this motion only two days before the hearing date. =(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