DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC24620700·sf·Civil·Real Property/Housing
Hearing 10 months agoDENIED

TIFFANY CHOU VS. DOUGLAS G. SYKES ET AL

Motion To Stay Proceedings

Hearing date
Oct 23, 2025
Department
501
Prevailing
Opposing Party

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffTIFFANY CHOU
DefendantDOUGLAS G. SYKES

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CGC24620700 - October 23, 2025 Hearing date: October 23, 2025 Case number: CGC24620700 Case title: TIFFANY CHOU VS. DOUGLAS G. SYKES ET AL Case Number: | | CGC24620700 | Case Title: | | TIFFANY CHOU VS. DOUGLAS G. SYKES ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-10-23 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion And Motion To Stay Proceedings | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for October 23, 2025. Line 3.

PLAINTIFF TIFFANY CHOU's Motion To Stay Proceedings is DENIED. According to the Notice of Motion, moving party seeks to stay these proceedings "until completion of the jury trial scheduled for November 10, 2025, in the related Unlawful Detainer case." This request is not supported by Points and Authorities, which requests stay in conjunction with a different action, CGC-25-677947. =(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