DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC20582811·sf·Civil·Real Property
Hearing 6 months agoOFF CALENDAR

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

Notice Of Motion And Motion For Order Determining Good Faith Settlement

Hearing date
Feb 9, 2026
Department
501
Prevailing
N/A
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffMICHAEL J. MOATS
DefendantMICHAEL TSANG
DefendantNRT WEST, INC. DBA COLDWELL BANKER GLOBAL LUXURY
DefendantNAOMI GLASS

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CGC20582811 - February 9, 2026 Hearing date: February 9, 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: | | 2026-02-09 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion And Motion For Order Determining Good Faith Settlement | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for February 9, 2026.

Line 2 DEFENDANT NRT WEST, INC. DBA COLDWELL BANKER GLOBAL LUXURY, NAOMI GLASS Motion For Order Determining Good Faith Settlement is OFF CALENDAR. Heard on January 26, 2026. =(501/REQ) 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