DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CUD26681420·sf·Civil·Unlawful Detainer
Hearing 2 months agoDENIED

TENTH AND MARKET LLC VS. VESTON SMITH ET AL

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, UNLAWFUL DETAINER

Hearing date
Jun 22, 2026
Department
501
Prevailing
Opposing Party

Motion type

Browse all Motion for Summary Judgment rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Parties

PlaintiffTENTH AND MARKET LLC
DefendantVESTON SMITH

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CUD26681420 - June 22, 2026 Hearing date: June 22, 2026 Case number: CUD26681420 Case title: TENTH AND MARKET LLC VS. VESTON SMITH ET AL Case Number: | | CUD26681420 | Case Title: | | TENTH AND MARKET LLC VS. VESTON SMITH ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-06-22 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, UNLAWFUL DETAINER | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for June 22, 2026. Line 8.

PLAINTIFF TENTH AND MARKET LLC MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, is DENIED. Triable issues of material fact exist regarding Defendant's habitability defense and the amount of rent that was due at the time the Three-Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit was served. =(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 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