DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CUD26681360·sf·Civil·Unlawful Detainer
Hearing about 2 months agoDENIED

MISSION BAY BLOCK 7 HOUSING PARTNERS, LP VS. ALLA ORLOVA ET AL

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Hearing date
Jul 9, 2026
Department
505
Prevailing
Plaintiff

Motion type

Browse all Motion for Summary Judgment rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Parties

PlaintiffMISSION BAY BLOCK 7 HOUSING PARTNERS, LP
DefendantALLA ORLOVA
DefendantVOLODYMYR ORLOV

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CUD26681360 - July 9, 2026 Hearing date: July 9, 2026 Case number: CUD26681360 Case title: MISSION BAY BLOCK 7 HOUSING PARTNERS, LP VS. ALLA ORLOVA ET AL Case Number: | | CUD26681360 | Case Title: | | MISSION BAY BLOCK 7 HOUSING PARTNERS, LP VS. ALLA ORLOVA ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-07-09 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for July 9, 2026. Line 13.

DEFENDANT ALLA ORLOVA, VOLODYMYR ORLOV MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT is DENIED. Defendants have not shifted their initial burden.

First, Defendants have not shifted their burden of showing they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law under Eshagian v. Cepeda (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 433. The Three Day Notice to Quit was allegedly served on February 9, 2026, and it is dated February 9, 2026. Based on the face of the Notice, an ordinary tenant would have reasonably understood that the notice period commenced on February 9, 2026.

Second, the Notice states two independent grounds for termination: unauthorized occupancy, and nuisance in the form of harassment. Defendants have not addressed, in either the moving papers or the reply, why Plaintiff cannot prevail in this unlawful detainer based on nuisance, and therefore have not shifted their initial burden of showing that Plaintiff cannot prevail based on the Notice. As this is a motion for summary judgment, it cannot be granted if it does not completely dispose of the action.

Plaintiff's counsel is admonished to comply with all state and local rules in connection with all future filings, including but not limited to rules regarding proper formatting, page limits, and timely provision of courtesy copies.

This matter will be heard in department 505 by the Honorable Michelle Tong at 1:30 p.m. per the order of the presiding judge. =(505/MT)

Parties may appear in-person, or via Zoom Video Conference (Meeting ID: 160 4132 4666 Passcode: 872834). 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