DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC24614634·sf·Civil·Real Property
Hearing 9 months agoGRANTED

HAIBO WANG VS. KAI CHENG TANG

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO To Amend Complaint

Hearing date
Dec 3, 2025
Department
501
Judge
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffHAIBO WANG
DefendantKAI CHENG TANG

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CGC24614634 - December 3, 2025 Hearing date: December 3, 2025 Case number: CGC24614634 Case title: HAIBO WANG VS. KAI CHENG TANG Case Number: | | CGC24614634 | Case Title: | | HAIBO WANG VS. KAI CHENG TANG | Court Date: | | 2025-12-03 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | MOTION FOR LEAVE TO To Amend Complaint | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for December 3, 2025. Line 4. PLAINTIFF HAIBO WANG, AN INDIVIDUAL MOTION FOR LEAVE TO To Amend Complaint; is GRANTED.

First Amended Complaint to be filed and served forthwith. =(501/AAT) 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