DecisionDepot
California Legal Research
All cases
CGC20582811·sf·Civil·Real Property
CONTINUED

MICHAEL J. MOATS ET AL VS. MICHAEL TSANG ET AL

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Or In The Alternative Summary Adjudication

Hearing date
Jan 2, 2026
Department
501
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Jan 13, 2026

Motion type

Motion for Summary JudgmentMotion for Summary Adjudication

Parties

PlaintiffMICHAEL J. MOATS
DefendantMICHAEL TSANG
DefendantCHRISTINA TSANG
DefendantGEORGE TSANG

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CGC20582811 - January 2, 2026 Hearing date: January 2, 2026 Case number: CGC20582811 Case title: MICHAEL J. MOATS ET AL VS. MICHAEL TSANG ET AL Case Number: | | CGC20582811 | Case Title: | | MICHAEL J. MOATS ET AL VS. MICHAEL TSANG ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-01-02 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Or In The Alternative Summary Adjudication | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for January 2, 2026. Line 2.1.

DEFENDANT MICHAEL TSANG, CHRISTINA TSANG, GEORGE TSANG MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Or In The Alternative Summary Adjudication is transferred to department 301 to be heard on January 13, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. The Honorable Charles F. Haines recused himself. =(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…

Extracted by Gemini Flash 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?”

Powered by Gemini Flash Lite. Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Source

Share