DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC20582811·sf·Civil·Real Property
Hearing 8 months agoCONTINUED

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

MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Hearing date
Dec 29, 2025
Department
501
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Jan 13, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Motion for Summary Adjudication rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffMICHAEL J. MOATS
DefendantMICHAEL TSANG
DefendantTHAYERS

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CGC20582811 - December 29, 2025 Hearing date: December 29, 2025 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: | | 2025-12-29 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for December 29, 2025 line 1.

DEFENDANTS THAYERS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION is transferred to Department 301 to be heard on January 13, 2026. Motions currently scheduled in department 501 for January 2, 2026 are also transferred to department 301 to be heard on January 13, 2026. The Honorable Charles F. Haines recused himself. =(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