DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CUD25679571·sf·Civil·Real Property
Hearing 7 months agoCONTINUED

OCEAN INVESTMENT COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL VS. MILTON RENE HUEZO ET AL

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS OR STAY OR DISMISS

Hearing date
Jan 12, 2026
Department
501
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Jan 14, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Quash rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffOCEAN INVESTMENT COMPANY
DefendantMILTON RENE HUEZO
DefendantCARMEN SORIANO
DefendantJORGE SOLORZANO

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CUD25679571 - January 12, 2026 Hearing date: January 12, 2026 Case number: CUD25679571 Case title: OCEAN INVESTMENT COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL VS. MILTON RENE HUEZO ET AL Case Number: | | CUD25679571 | Case Title: | | OCEAN INVESTMENT COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL VS. MILTON RENE HUEZO ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-01-12 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 January 12, 2026. Line 8.

DEFENDANT CARMEN SORIANO, AN INDIVIDUAL, JORGE SOLORZANO MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS OR STAY OR DISMISS is continued to January 14, 2026 per the order of the presiding judge.=(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