DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC25623526·sf·Civil·Real Property
Hearing 7 months agoSUSTAINED with leave to amend

WARREN SHUNG CHEUNG VS. DOUGLAS SYKES ET AL

Amended DEMURRER to Amended COMPLAINT

Hearing date
Jan 14, 2026
Department
501
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Demurrer rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffWARREN SHUNG CHEUNG
DefendantDOUGLAS SYKES
DefendantENTRA DEFAULT SOLUTIONS LLC

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CGC25623526 - January 14, 2026 Hearing date: January 14, 2026 Case number: CGC25623526 Case title: WARREN SHUNG CHEUNG VS. DOUGLAS SYKES ET AL Case Number: | | CGC25623526 | Case Title: | | WARREN SHUNG CHEUNG VS. DOUGLAS SYKES ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-01-14 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Amended DEMURRER to Amended COMPLAINT | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for January 14, 2026 line 2.

DEFENDANTS SYKES AND ENTRA DEFAULT SOLUTIONS LLC'S AMENDED DEMURRER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT is SUSTAINED with leave to amend to either properly allege standing or substitute the appropriate Plaintiff.

The Court takes judicial notice of the Notice of Appeal filed on October 20, 2025 by Tiffany Chou, as Trustee in case CUD-25-677947. This filing was made months after the purported appointment of Ms. Cheung as Successor Trustee (See Appointment of Successor Trustee attached as exhibit to the Second Amended Complaint). =(501/CFH)

Parties may appear in-person, telephonically or via Zoom [Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849; Phone Dial in: (669) 254-5252].

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 so 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