DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CUD26681605·sf·Civil·Real Property
Hearing 3 months agoCONTINUED

FIVE ELEMENTS, LLC VS. NORTH STAR PARKING, LLC ET AL

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Hearing date
May 22, 2026
Department
501
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
May 28, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Motion for Summary Judgment rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffFIVE ELEMENTS, LLC
DefendantNORTH STAR PARKING, LLC

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CUD26681605 - May 22, 2026 Hearing date: May 22, 2026 Case number: CUD26681605 Case title: FIVE ELEMENTS, LLC VS. NORTH STAR PARKING, LLC ET AL Case Number: | | CUD26681605 | Case Title: | | FIVE ELEMENTS, LLC VS. NORTH STAR PARKING, LLC ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-05-22 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for May 22, 2026. Line 5.

PLAINTIFF FIVE ELEMENTS, LLC MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT is CONTINUED to May 28, 2026, for the opposing party to comply with LRSF 2.7B and provide courtesy copies of the opposition papers no later than May 22, 2026 with a cover letter reflecting the new hearing date. (Moving papers received.) =(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