DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC25630405·sf·Civil·Real Property
Hearing about 2 months agoGRANTED

TIMOTHY WILSON ET AL VS. ELISA GARIBAY

Amended Application For An Order Granting Leave For Chicago Title Company To Deposit Of Funds Pursuant To Civ. Code 1057.3(D)

Hearing date
Jun 30, 2026
Department
501
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$36,000

Parties

PlaintiffTimothy Wilson
DefendantElisa Garibay
OtherChicago Title Company

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CGC25630405 - June 30, 2026 Hearing date: June 30, 2026 Case number: CGC25630405 Case title: TIMOTHY WILSON ET AL VS. ELISA GARIBAY Case Number: | | CGC25630405 | Case Title: | | TIMOTHY WILSON ET AL VS. ELISA GARIBAY | Court Date: | | 2026-06-30 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Amended Application For An Order Granting Leave For Chicago Title Company To Deposit Of Funds Pursuant To Civ. Code 1057.3(D) | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for June 30, 2026. Line 7. OTHER CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY Amended Application For An Order Granting Leave For Chicago Title Company To Deposit Of Funds Pursuant To Civ. Code 1057.3(D) is GRANTED.

Applicant shall deposit $36,000 with the Court forthwith. =(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