DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
26-UDL-00636·sanmateo·Civil·Unlawful Detainer
Hearing 21 days agoDENIED

ZIJING LIU VS. STEPHEN F. POWELL

STEPHEN POWELL’S MOTION TO SUSPEND SHERIFF’S JULY 7, 2026 NOTICE TO VACATE

Hearing date
Aug 3, 2026
Department
11
Prevailing
Plaintiff

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffZIJING LIU
DefendantSTEPHEN F. POWELL

Ruling

August 3, 2026 LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR PAGE 11 Judge: HONORABLE DAVID A. SILBERMAN, DEPARTMENT 11 ________________________________________________________________________

UD LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR MONDAY, AUGUST 03, 2026

02:00 PM 26-UDL-00636 ZIJING LIU VS. STEPHEN F. POWELL LINE 6

ZIJING LIU PRO PER STEPHEN F. POWELL PRO PER

DEFENDANT: STEPHEN POWELL’S MOTION TO SUSPEND SHERIFF'S JULY 7, 2026 NOTICE TO VACATE

TENTATIVE RULING:

The Motion to Suspend Sheriff’s July 7, 2026 Notice to Vacate by Defendant Stephen F. Powell is DENIED as moot. The sheriff returned possession of the property to Plaintiff on July 7, 2026. (See Return on Writ of Possession filed July 22, 2026.)

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must email Dept.11@sanmateocourt.org with a copy to all other parties by 4:00 p.m. stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for the prevailing party shall prepare for the Court’s signature a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and by the California Rules of Court. Please note that Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv) states in part “prevailing party on a tentative ruling is required to prepare a proposed order REPEATING VERBATIM the tentative ruling” (emphasis added). The order should be e- filed only, do not email or mail a hard copy to the Court.

POSTED: 3:00 PM

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