| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Motion For Order That The Truth Of Matters Be Deemed Admitted
SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CUD25679164 - December 26, 2025 Hearing date: December 26, 2025 Case number: CUD25679164 Case title: JOSIE IWAMOTO VS. PAUL VEGAS ET AL Case Number: | | CUD25679164 | Case Title: | | JOSIE IWAMOTO VS. PAUL VEGAS ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-12-26 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Motion For Order That The Truth Of Matters Be Deemed Admitted; Memorandum Of Points And Authorities Iso | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for December 26, 2025. Line 3.2.
Defendant Suzanne Vegas's Motion for Order that the Truth of Matters be Deemed Admitted is DENIED without prejudice. There is no declaration of any messenger who personally delivered the discovery, that was properly filed and served at the time of the notice of motion. Amended declarations filed on December 23, 2025, which were not filed and served with the notice of motion, or even before the original hearing date, are stricken as improper.=(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. | |
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”