DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC25628200·sf·Civil·Real Property
Hearing 5 months agoGRANTED

NEMAN BROTHERS & ASSOCIATES INC. VS. JONG CHENG WONG ET AL

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS OR STAY OR DISMISS

Hearing date
Apr 1, 2026
Department
501
Prevailing
Defendant

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Quash rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffNEMAN BROTHERS & ASSOCIATES INC.
DefendantJONG CHENG WONG
DefendantBICK LEW

Ruling

Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for April 1, 2026. Line 3. DEFENDANT BICK LEW MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS OR STAY OR DISMISS is GRANTED. Plaintiff filed its opposition late. Plaintiff has been properly e-served in accordance with the CRC, CCP and Local Rules. The purported substitute service at 75 Madrone is not proper as Ms. Lew resides at 55 Madrone. (See Lew Declaration). February 1, 2026 service is quashed. =(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 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