DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CUD25679400·sf·Civil·Unlawful Detainer
Hearing 11 months agoGRANTED

BV HOUSING PRESERVATION, LP VS. ALISSA THOMAS ET AL

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS OR STAY OR DISMISS

Hearing date
Oct 1, 2025
Department
501
Judge
Prevailing
Defendant

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Quash rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffBV HOUSING PRESERVATION, LP
DefendantALISSA THOMAS

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CUD25679400 - October 1, 2025 Hearing date: October 1, 2025 Case number: CUD25679400 Case title: BV HOUSING PRESERVATION, LP VS. ALISSA THOMAS ET AL Case Number: | | CUD25679400 | Case Title: | | BV HOUSING PRESERVATION, LP VS. ALISSA THOMAS ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-10-01 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS OR STAY OR DISMISS | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for October 1, 2025 line 13.

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS OR STAY OR DISMISS is GRANTED, subject to opposition, as follows: (1) any purported personal service on defendant Alissa Thomas prior to September 25, 2025 is quashed; and (2) any purported service by posting and mailing absent a court order authorizing such service is quashed.

As plaintiff has not yet filed a proof of service of summons, this order is limited and does not extend to any potential service other than those previously described. =(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