DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC24614634·sf·Civil·Real Property / Housing
Hearing todayOFF CALENDAR. Insufficient notice per CCP 1005 and 1010.6.

HAIBO WANG VS. KAI CHENG TANG

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUNE 24, 2026 ORDER RE DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 473(B)

Hearing date
Aug 27, 2026
Department
501
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffHAIBO WANG
DefendantKAI CHENG TANG

Ruling

Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for August 27, 2026. Line 2. NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUNE 24, 2026 ORDER RE DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 473(B) MOVING PARTY: HAIBO WANG is OFF CALENDAR. Insufficient notice per CCP 1005 and 1010.6. Notice does not account for e-service. The Court notes that this motion was filed by Omni Legal Group, not an attorney for record in this case. No further filings and no argument will be allowed by this law firm until a substitution of attorney or limited scope representation papers are on file.

These are mandatory judicial council forms. =(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