DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CUD25680798·sf·Civil·Real Property
Hearing about 2 months agoDENIED without prejudice.

1555 HYDE LLC VS. MARC WALLACE ET AL

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Hearing date
Jun 26, 2026
Department
501
Prevailing
Defendant

Motion type

Browse all Motion for Summary Judgment rulings statewide →

Parties

Plaintiff1555 HYDE LLC
DefendantMARC WALLACE

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CUD25680798 - June 26, 2026 Hearing date: June 26, 2026 Case number: CUD25680798 Case title: 1555 HYDE LLC VS. MARC WALLACE ET AL Case Number: | | CUD25680798 | Case Title: | | 1555 HYDE LLC VS. MARC WALLACE ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-06-26 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for June 26, 2026. Line 9.

PLAINTIFF 1555 HYDE LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff has not shifted its initial burden regarding the amount of rent due at the time the Notice was served. The Declaration of Cris Lamas expressly refers to an Addendum included in Exhibit 1 thereto. However, Exhibit 1, as filed, contains no such Addendum, and terminates at Page 16 of 18. =(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