DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC25632579·sf·Civil·Quiet Title
Hearing about 2 months agoCONTINUED

MELISSA KOH ET AL VS. THE TESTATE AND INTESTATE ET AL

Application For Quiet Title Judgment

Hearing date
Jul 13, 2026
Department
501
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Aug 28, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Petition rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Parties

PlaintiffMELISSA KOH
DefendantTHE TESTATE AND INTESTATE
OtherDIANE KOH
OtherEVELYN KOH

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CGC25632579 - July 13, 2026 Hearing date: July 13, 2026 Case number: CGC25632579 Case title: MELISSA KOH ET AL VS. THE TESTATE AND INTESTATE ET AL Case Number: | | CGC25632579 | Case Title: | | MELISSA KOH ET AL VS. THE TESTATE AND INTESTATE ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-07-13 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Application For Quiet Title Judgment | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for July 13, 2026. Line 4.

Plaintiff's Application for Quiet Title Judgment is continued to August 28, 2026 for Diane Koh and Evelyn Koh to properly appear in the action. Stipulation filed on April 24, 2026 was not accompanied by first appearance fee or necessary information (representation, address, phone number, etc) =(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…
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