DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CUD26681034·sf·Civil·Unlawful Detainer
Hearing 3 months agoGRANTED. The Default Judgment entered on March 2, 2026, against Defendants shall be vacated.

GS MISSION OWNER, LLC VS. DEMARCO ROBINSON ET AL

Motion To Vacate Default Judgment Entered Against Defendants

Hearing date
May 21, 2026
Department
501
Prevailing
Defendant

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffGS MISSION OWNER, LLC
DefendantDEMARCO ROBINSON

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CUD26681034 - May 21, 2026 Hearing date: May 21, 2026 Case number: CUD26681034 Case title: GS MISSION OWNER, LLC VS. DEMARCO ROBINSON ET AL Case Number: | | CUD26681034 | Case Title: | | GS MISSION OWNER, LLC VS. DEMARCO ROBINSON ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-05-21 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Motion To Vacate Default Judgment Entered Against Defendants | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for May 21, 2026. Line 13.

PLAINTIFF GS MISSION OWNER, LLC Motion To Vacate Default Judgment Entered Against Defendants is GRANTED. The Default Judgment entered on March 2, 2026, against Defendants shall be vacated. =(501/DWH)

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 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