DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CUD26681485·sf·Civil·Unlawful Detainer
Hearing about 2 months agoDENIED

LEADING PROPERTIES VS. PHILIP EDISON GILYANNA ET AL

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Hearing date
Jun 26, 2026
Department
501
Prevailing
Opposing Party

Motion type

Browse all Motion for Summary Judgment rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffLEADING PROPERTIES
DefendantPHILIP EDISON GILYANNA

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CUD26681485 - June 26, 2026 Hearing date: June 26, 2026 Case number: CUD26681485 Case title: LEADING PROPERTIES VS. PHILIP EDISON GILYANNA ET AL Case Number: | | CUD26681485 | Case Title: | | LEADING PROPERTIES VS. PHILIP EDISON GILYANNA 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 10.

PLAINTIFF LEADING PROPERTIES MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT is DENIED. Triable issues of material facts exist, including the amount of rent that was due at the time the Three-Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit was served and issues relating to Defendant's habitability defense. =(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