DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CPF25519169·sf·Civil·Writ of Administrative Mandamus
Hearing about 2 months agoCONTINUED

CARL NATVIG VS. SAN FRANCISCO RENT STABILIZATION AND ARBITRATION ET AL

Notice Of Motion And Motion For Writ Of Administrative Mandamus

Hearing date
Jun 29, 2026
Department
501
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Jul 15, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Petition rulings statewide →

Parties

PetitionerCARL NATVIG
RespondentSAN FRANCISCO RENT STABILIZATION AND ARBITRATION

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CPF25519169 - June 29, 2026 Hearing date: June 29, 2026 Case number: CPF25519169 Case title: CARL NATVIG VS. SAN FRANCISCO RENT STABILIZATION AND ARBITRATION ET AL Case Number: | | CPF25519169 | Case Title: | | CARL NATVIG VS. SAN FRANCISCO RENT STABILIZATION AND ARBITRATION ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-06-29 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion And Motion For Writ Of Administrative Mandamus | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for June 29, 2026. Line 1.

PETITIONER CARL NATVIG Notice Of Motion And Motion For Writ Of Administrative Mandamus is transferred to department 301 on July 15, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. The Honorable Charles F. Haines recuses himself. =(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