DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CUD26681163·sf·Civil·Real Property
Hearing 4 months agoDENIED

ANNA HASTINGS VS. JAMES NOBEL ET AL

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Hearing date
May 5, 2026
Department
501
Prevailing
Defendant

Motion type

Browse all Motion for Summary Judgment rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffANNA HASTINGS
DefendantJAMES NOBEL

Ruling

Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for May 5, 2026. Line 9. PLAINTIFF ANNA HASTINGS, AS SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE OF THE HASTINGS FAMILY TRUST MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT is DENIED.

Plaintiff has failed to meet her initial burden of showing that she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on the undisputed facts. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint contains no allegation, and the deemed admissions do not establish, that the license was terminated at any time prior to the filing of the First Amended Complaint. The First Amended Complaint alleges, "Plaintiff hereby terminates Defendant's license to occupy the Premises." No authority for the apparent proposition that by the act of filing a complaint, Plaintiff may create the basis for recovery sought in that complaint. =(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 so 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