DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CUD26682116·sf·Civil·Real Property/Housing
Hearing about 2 months agoGRANTED

LEGALLET PROPERTIES LLC DBA BAYVIEW INDUSTRIAL VS. EILEEN BECKER ET AL

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS OR STAY OR DISMISS

Hearing date
Jul 22, 2026
Department
501
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Quash rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffLEGALLET PROPERTIES LLC DBA BAYVIEW INDUSTRIAL
DefendantEILEEN BECKER
DefendantJERRY CALDWELL

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CUD26682116 - July 22, 2026 Hearing date: July 22, 2026 Case number: CUD26682116 Case title: LEGALLET PROPERTIES LLC DBA BAYVIEW INDUSTRIAL VS. EILEEN BECKER ET AL Case Number: | | CUD26682116 | Case Title: | | LEGALLET PROPERTIES LLC DBA BAYVIEW INDUSTRIAL VS. EILEEN BECKER ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-07-22 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS OR STAY OR DISMISS | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for July 22, 2026. Line 16.

DEFENDANT MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS OR STAY OR DISMISS is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to make attempts to serve Defendant Jerry Caldwell in person at 1045 Revere Avenue before seeking another order authorizing service of summons by posting and mailing.

This matter will be heard in department 318 by the Honorable Christopher C. Hite at 1:30 p.m. per the order of the presiding judge. =(501/CCH)

Parties may appear in-person, or via Zoom (Meeting ID: 160 1140 0818 Passcode: 976491).

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